Re: [Cvs-dev] Re: Result of CVS Coverity scan, via NetBSD

[address@hidden]

Mark D. Baushke writes:
>
> According to coverity, most of those fixes do really have a possible
> code path where the values could legitmately be NULL.

I find that hard to believe.  Since dereferencing a null pointer will
crash on most platforms, I would have thought we'd have noticed them
by now if there was a legitimate case where they could be null.

> In a few cases, the Coverity code is getting the idea that they could be
> NULL because a later check after the dereference was made to see if they
> were NULL before they were in a call to free().

I'd have made the opposite assumption, that the check before the free
is redundant rather than that the lack of a prior check is dangerous.
:-)

> If you have particular places where you think I should be putting
> asserts(), please let me know.

I don't.  I have unfortunately not had time to even look at the
coverity results or more than glance at your fixes.  :-(

> I'll bear the use of assert() in mind as I move through the rest of the
> problems that have been reported.

Thanks.

-Larry Jones


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .