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

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

Followup to:  <3F0EC9C9.4090307@inet.com>
By author:    Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > 
> > Not really needed, since a segfault will produce almost as much 
> > information as a BUG_ON().  Certainly it will produce enough to let a 
> > developer know that the pointer was NULL.
> 
> Your first message said, "I see no reason for pure paranoia, 
> particularly if it's not commented as such."  A BUG_ON() call makes it 
> clear that the condition should never happen.  Dereferencing a NULL 
> leaves the question of whether NULL is an unhandled case or invalid 
> input.  BUG_ON() is an explicit paranoia check, and with a bit of 
> preprocessing magic, you could compile out all of those checks.
> 
> So it documents invalid input conditions, allows you to eliminate the 
> checks in the name of speed or your personal preference, or use them to 
> help with debugging/testing.
> 

... but it also bloats the code, in this case, in many ways
needlessly.  You don't want to compile out all BUG_ON()'s, just the
ones that wouldn't be checked for anyway.

In fact, have a macro that explicitly tests for nullness by
dereferencing a pointer might be a good idea; on most architectures it
will be a lot cheaper than BUG_ON() (which usually requires an
explicit test), and the compiler at least has a prayer at optimizing
it out.

	-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