On 09/17/2017 02:59 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> If you pass a newly-initialized or newly-cleared `string_list` to >> `for_each_string_list_item()`, then the latter does >> >> for ( >> item = (list)->items; /* note, this is NULL */ >> item < (list)->items + (list)->nr; /* note: NULL + 0 */ >> ++item) >> >> Even though this probably works almost everywhere, it is undefined >> behavior, and it could plausibly cause highly-optimizing compilers to >> misbehave. >> ... >> It would be a pain to have to change the signature of this macro, and >> we'd prefer not to add overhead to each iteration of the loop. So >> instead, whenever `list->items` is NULL, initialize `item` to point at >> a dummy `string_list_item` created for the purpose. >> ... >> -#define for_each_string_list_item(item,list) \ >> - for (item = (list)->items; item < (list)->items + (list)->nr; ++item) >> +extern struct string_list_item dummy_string_list_item; >> +#define for_each_string_list_item(item,list) \ >> + for (item = (list)->items ? (list)->items : &dummy_string_list_item; \ >> + item < (list)->items + (list)->nr; \ >> + ++item) > > Sorry, but I am confused. > > So when (list)->items is NULL, the loop termination condition that > used to be > > NULL < NULL + 0 > > that was problematic because NULL + 0 is problematic now becomes > > &dummy < NULL + 0 > > in the new code? What made NULL + 0 not problematic now? *sigh* of course you're right. I should know better than to "fire off a quick fix to the mailing list". I guess the two proposals that are still in the running for rescuing this macro are Jonathan's and Gábor's. I have no strong preference either way. Michael
