On 04/17/2012 11:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 11:45 AM, Guannan Ren wrote:
>> The result is indeterminate for NULL argument to python
>> functions as follows. It's better to return negative value in
>> these situations.
>>
>> PyObject_IsTrue will segfault if the argument is NULL
>> PyFloat_AsDouble(NULL) is -1.000000
>> PyLong_AsUnsignedLongLong(NULL) is 0.000000
>> ---
>> python/typewrappers.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> ACK.
I spoke too soon. On looking at it more, I'm wondering if all callers
do the right thing in this case. It would probably be better if we
explicitly raised a python exception before returning -1, so that
callers can blindly assume that a return of -1 means that the correct
python error is already present.
That is, instead of:
if (!obj)
return -1;
should we instead be doing something like:
if (!obj) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError, "unexpected type");
return -1;
}
Or are we guaranteed that the only way obj is NULL is if the caller
already encountered an error, so there is already a python error set?
--
Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list