Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:44:01 +0900 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> Cc: Thomas Quinot <thomas@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL) Message-ID: <m2isa7xk5a.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <y7vd60fgsf3.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> References: <20040921123016.GA41677@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> <y7visa7h2ki.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <20040921190717.GG84228@lucky.net> <y7vfz5bgzda.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <20040921213233.GA84392@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> <y7vd60fgsf3.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:37:20 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > Note also that other *BSDs and Solaris use the "segfault" logic. The > freeaddrinfo implementation in the "libbind" library as a part of the > ISC BIND package, which many UNIX-like OS vendors adopt (perhaps with > vendor-specific modifications though), also segfaults against a NULL > argument. > > So, although consistency might in general be a good thing, the real > world's examples show we just have variations. > Sorry to come in late on this, but you know I was asleep. One quick comment. It is easier to find and fix the bug that relating to a NULL pointer if the program seg faults than if it continues blithely on. I think we should stick with failing early. Later, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2isa7xk5a.wl>