Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> But of all the options outlined, I think I'd much rather just see an
> assert() for something that should never happen, rather than mixing it
> into the logic.
Surely.
> In that vein, one thing that puzzles me is that the current code looks
> like:
>
> if (options->msg_severity && msg_id >= 0 && msg_id < FSCK_MSG_MAX)
> severity = options->msg_severity[msg_id];
> else {
> severity = msg_id_info[msg_id].severity;
> ...
> }
>
> So if the severity override list given by "options" exists, _and_ if we
> are in the enum range, then we use that. Otherwise, we dereference the
> global list. But wouldn't an out-of-range condition have the exact same
> problem dereferencing that global list?
>
> IOW, should this really be:
>
> if (msg_id < 0 || msg_id >= FSCK_MSG_MAX)
> die("BUG: broken enum");
>
> if (options->msg_severity)
> severity = options->msg_severity[msg_id];
> else
> severity = msg_id_info[msg_id].severity;
>
> ? And then you can spell that first part as assert(), which I suspect
> (but did not test) may shut up clang's warnings.
Sounds like a sensible fix to me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html