29 Mar
2010
29 Mar
'10
7:22 p.m.
Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/29/2010 10:37 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Another one caught by clang:
Note the first test to see if "inst" may be NULL. Then, in the following loop, "inst" is unconditionally dereferenced via "inst[i]". There are other unprotected used of "inst[i]" below, too.
Rather than trying to protect all uses, one by one, I chose to return "success" when given an empty list of rules.
ACK that your patch is the minimal fix to avoid a segfault, but we should probably get Stefan's input on whether returning success on an empty input is the best course of behavior.
Ok. I've Cc'd him.