Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] virCommand: document behavior on no output

2010/12/4 Justin Clift <jclift(a)redhat.com&gt;: > On 04/12/2010, at 8:28 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> Option 1: This patch (all callers have to worry about NULL buffers, >> but checking for output is a simple pointer check). >> >> Option 2: Guarantee that outbuf/errbuf are allocated, even if to >> the empty string.  Caller always has to free the result, and >> empty output check requires checking if *outbuf=='\0'. >> >> Personally, I prefer option 2.  Thoughts? > > 2 seems safer. > I vote for the second version too.