From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30953 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2007 23:24:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 30945 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2007 23:24:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (HELO b.mail.sonic.net) (64.142.19.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:24:41 +0000 Received: from webmail.sonic.net (b.webmail.sonic.net [64.142.100.148]) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l6QNOMFb028692; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:24:22 -0700 Received: from 12.7.175.2 (SquirrelMail authenticated user msnyder) by webmail.sonic.net with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <15312.12.7.175.2.1185492262.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> In-Reply-To: <20070726191055.GA11301@lucon.org> References: <22002.12.7.175.2.1185409273.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070726021855.GA29523@lucon.org> <20070726114139.GA15404@caradoc.them.org> <20070726130808.GA9417@lucon.org> <14727.12.7.175.2.1185475927.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070726191055.GA11301@lucon.org> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:52:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [patch] coff-i386, guard against null From: msnyder@sonic.net To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: msnyder@sonic.net, binutils@sourceware.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00473.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:52:07AM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 07:41:39AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:18:55PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:21:13PM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote: >> >> > > Other code in this function checks to see if sym is null. >> >> > > If it's null here, it'll fail. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > 2007-07-25 Michael Snyder >> >> > > >> >> > > * coff-i386.c (coff_i386_rtype_to_howto): Guard against null. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > I prefer BFD_ASSERT (sym != NULL). >> >> >> >> BFD_ASSERT returns, though. >> > >> > I'd like to know when this condition happens. Crash is better than >> > silent return. That is how BFD_ASSERT is used other places. >> >> But it doesn't fix the problem that I set out to fix. >> If it returns, we'll still crash. >> >> H.J., the change I submitted is consistant with existing code >> in this module. There are six local uses of "if (x != NULL)", >> and only one local use of BFD_ASSERT. I don't mind if you want >> to add a BFD_ASSERT in addition, but why not let my change go in? > > OK with BFD_ASSERT. Sorry, I don't understand your reply.