Re: Style question: Should one check for NULL pointers?

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <3F0DD21B.5010408@inet.com>
By author:    Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Alan Stern wrote:
> [snip]
> > Ultimately this comes down to a question of style and taste.  This 
> > particular issue is not addressed in Documentation/CodingStyle so I'm 
> > raising it here.  My personal preference is for code that means what it 
> > says; if a pointer is checked it should be because there is a genuine 
> > possibility that the pointer _is_ NULL.  I see no reason for pure 
> > paranoia, particularly if it's not commented as such.
> > 
> > Comments, anyone?
> 
> BUG_ON() perhaps?
> 

BUG_ON() is largely redundant if you would have a null pointer
reference anyway.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
If you send me mail in HTML format I will assume it's spam.
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64