From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6161C1F54E for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="kHPu3t8O"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242993AbiG0SDi (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:03:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41604 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242983AbiG0SDR (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:03:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x104a.google.com (mail-pj1-x104a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::104a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74561BA4E6 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x104a.google.com with SMTP id mi13-20020a17090b4b4d00b001ef9759d26aso2272276pjb.0 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:from:subject:references :mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date:from:to:cc; bh=uROGNp1P9QtiofS9M1Z+CumNzSd1AXmJTgYZxxLbmoY=; b=kHPu3t8OgS4P81fRzIuH4nFSOoy0FET5OKayT3ItZKTUy3LXG4ef/+84YSG8/Sq6G1 J8f2J9Q2cFmMYFmapfg48h1CipUdfzotpQxJUPGBw9BEvFKEefNI3TV1TVdtMxd3yoRc z6RimckP8kFoS2b55tygBoOf/qt629AIBTQyRYkRInCT2OxDdMQc6JhNdn3txn7v/X0u eedD0Wn8qOE7wW8lWaBQ8K0ja5IYEuOQ6S4pV8uhYHMPEzlv5FW8v97lnonZ8JWG6qA1 gQ+UcQKDilvjwo/8VcYPACV30igd0pMOQp44mOwc0vhkJIOoGiugbNewUcYRigGfO9d2 D72g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:from:subject:references :mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc; bh=uROGNp1P9QtiofS9M1Z+CumNzSd1AXmJTgYZxxLbmoY=; b=gvRakulZsbCoMwx6dBN1si0dvO8Snz5a9NkE2lFBx8JJXiskC8CfqW+IKFiNGSh2jr 3ucltRK9GAsHMgvSoC8tSHmRt/4ri/5ZrYTJiMO5y7BcCi7fLuQZhPuzQevj3bIczQhE GxUVYr4BAi4aOGrvUHQDm2Hl6IiEkgRCIXa80iuluMY/HQ85RLmk5FsQl3adCLad8Y/0 w3ynZ7tvGbMULOQGLaTASMQaEyx9z0G/hEOQLcoL/Ram+IhFcutP9enmDbSfa2c2opvn 7I1WU4hjn3c3LlcmE9oxNh6o0PUfEb+r22tGvlS8i7nXc7heKKA9NsxrWBCtnmBrSqw5 Dwrw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9EGZ2Pm2H2JqvKtPTJB561oSDu+7PsePhcWSDrgrRXAGeDUeok EmHi/B4IMi3EhAWwEzGQofaSQZ/iXvtanw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sqJzCmaomOnLh283Gqc8osCWHp13cXvEChsM2LHR0BG6haTIl7fZe4pp8gMRIu5rX8FELic1rnx29d4w== X-Received: from chooglen.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:24:72f4:c0a8:26d9]) (user=chooglen job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:90a:8a8d:b0:1f3:155:3324 with SMTP id x13-20020a17090a8a8d00b001f301553324mr5541808pjn.89.1658941632485; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:07:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <220727.86v8rilxx1.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <220727.86v8rilxx1.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Subject: Re: nonnull v.s. BUG() if !x (was: [PATCH v2] config.c: NULL check when reading protected config) From: Glen Choo To: "=?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason" , Glen Choo via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , Derrick Stolee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > On Tue, Jul 26 2022, Glen Choo via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Glen Choo > >> + if (!filename) >> + BUG("filename cannot be NULL"); > > Looks good, but as an aside I wonder if we wouldn't get better code > analysis with "nonnull" for this sort of thing, but we can leave this > for now: > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.1.0/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.= html#Common-Function-Attributes Interesting. I wonder how good the analysis is vs the cost, e.g. it's useful if it detects _maybe_ NULL variables, but it might be too expensive if it requires us to mark all of our variables as non-NULL.