Browse Source
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; /* NULL */ item < (list)->items + (list)->nr; /* NULL + 0 */ ++item) Even though this probably works almost everywhere, it is undefined behavior, and it could plausibly cause highly-optimizing compilers to misbehave. C99 section 6.5.6 paragraph 8 explains: If both the pointer operand and the result point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object, the evaluation shall not produce an overflow; otherwise, the behavior is undefined. and (6.3.2.3.3) a null pointer does not point to anything. Guard the loop with a NULL check to make the intent crystal clear to even the most pedantic compiler. A suitably clever compiler could let the NULL check only run in the first iteration, but regardless, this overhead is likely to be dwarfed by the work to be done on each item. This problem was noticed by Coverity. [jn: using a NULL check instead of a placeholder empty list; fleshed out the commit message based on mailing list discussion] Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>maint
Michael Haggerty
7 years ago
committed by
Junio C Hamano
1 changed files with 4 additions and 2 deletions
Loading…
Reference in new issue