On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 02:29:27 +0300 Rand Deeb <rand.sec96@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:39 AM Michael Büsch <m@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The point is that leaving them in is defensive programming against future changes > > or against possible misunderstandings of the situation. > > Dear Michael, I understand your point. It's essential to consider defensive > programming principles to anticipate and mitigate potential issues in the > future. However, it's also crucial to strike a balance and not overburden > every function with excessive checks. It's about adopting a mindset of > anticipating potential problems while also maintaining code clarity and > efficiency. Removing NULL checks is the opposite of maintainability and code clarity. Efficiency doesn't matter here. (And besides that, NULL checks do not always mean less efficiency.) > > A NULL pointer dereference is Undefined Behavior. > > It can't get much worse in C. > > Again, If we adopt this approach, we'll find ourselves adding a null check > to every function we write, assuming that such changes may occur in the > future. This would be a good thing. Let the compiler remove redundant checks or let them stay there in the resulting program, if the compiler can't fiure it out. Checks are a good thing. > > Your suggestion was about REMOVING a null pointer check. > > Not about adding one. > > I NAK-ed the REMOVAL of a null pointer check. Not the addition. > > My suggestion was to remove a (REDUNDANT) null pointer check, and not a > null pointer check, there is a big difference. No. There is no difference. > However, if the reviewer encounters this check, they > might mistakenly assume that 'dev' could indeed be NULL before the function > call. So? Nothing would happen. > Conversely, if they read that 'dev' cannot be NULL, it could lead to > confusion, and perhaps they want the actual null check. Removing redundant > checks could mitigate confusion and minimize the risk of overlooking the > actual null check for example. I fundamentally disagree. Removing a NULL check _adds_ confusion. NULL is "the billion mistake" of computing. Please don't ever make it worse. Thanks. I will not ack a patch that reduces code quality. Removing NULL checks almost always reduces the quality of the code. -- Michael Büsch https://bues.ch/
Attachment:
pgp4pv_8OXi09.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
