Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 35975: /trunk/epan/dfilter/ /trunk/epan/dfilter/: dfilter-macro.c dfilter.c

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

Guy Harris wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:15 AM,  <guy () wireshark org> wrote:
> > >  OK, let's try a couple more explicit checks against NULL, to see whether
> > >  that de-confuses Microsoft's code analyzer.
> > Do we really want such changes?
> > Personally I think it makes the code harder to read.
>
> Some think
>
>         if (a) {
>                 ...
>         }
>
> is easier to read, others think
>
>         if (a != NULL) {
>                 ...
>         }

And some people think

        if (NULL == a) {
                ...
        }

is a good way of coding since a typo like (NULL = a) wouldn't compile.

But (at least for me) that really is unreadable!  (And finding typos 
like the above is, in my mind, something for the compiler to warn about.)

> It would be nice if the code analyzer bug in question didn't exist,
> but the output of the code analyzer looks useful enough that I'd prefer
> not to have to remember which "dereferecing a null pointer" complaints
> are bogus every time I look at the code analyzer output.

I imagine there are going to be a LOT of "if (a)" checks in 2 million 
LOC.  Do we really want to change them all?
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe