Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95113 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38273 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2016 12:41:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Aug 2016 12:41:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.15.19 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.15.19] ([212.227.15.19:56011] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 09/10-36656-5951FA75 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:41:58 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.103] ([79.243.112.54]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MIuzJ-1bW5Hv2Cj3-002Y9i; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:41:54 +0200 To: Nikita Popov Cc: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <85e38ba1-58d4-f8a7-33d4-5f4aa7fce44d@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:42:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:iG4/1cbnqwf5ZwqTah3qbWKPy5OQ78qdnIYhcNVhpgzMrH7o2K1 9WCiBbJ9tF+WLZMhv54LV/uZn1rB4eJlcwGJf6qWsjPPSdGo8zTLNny+E/ubmYavirqBFjx gq9+5jBlQpHYcLaE1JwKQwY/wDG6cSe2Uxnsok/zgHHXZTiGOB6kUdmdBZ0Zdk6gSWtsRtw 0ekTdenNGIEnX0OJr348w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:A0syXajbG/s=:x+ceOTFLX10H0T/Gn0et9o 9xGl7vtHxE9KRC3Mwqz9226rMadN7tfwjeJ0g0ZWP81Uj5pieJjTVNJHgpZt/8u/wsCaH/dB0 4D1XwaF2ucGErBvgR9ud5VEV4yTWZO2HXPfij44aA0p9Ct8MolOKN3XRPrzNuUdUzV8dM67bz HkkZzJ+sGUhbVJTaERZyUbMOOk8R8wczbVguvkrC2EjhJC9cdW4mtuN7z1cGM2d1QTOTmkOoq 4s6BztDeCOYGC758uSq9yllKl/b0MClb4BFEmVB1oDfLJuF1elaeSu7sWLZCbOUOaSkhNvE8g pf8BQeMj6N2MyAGdVxsVFkVfYTp5ciW+X0EGnkH58NqjaJ7DvyUOPSvi8uqwkiZiCuophFNAH G+b2sTRkhsZ9YbuS5vcjbWby2FUsr1TuQKMZC7Stj6RNrVlFcmh6qQXfZFSexLYuDYWa+0A8A APrmq7UEa46pZSKlE7y8NsXNnne5l711ExQXlyY0g44LuQJJvkKphyp5D24YSWTNMZ2R17cBU oUOgocg2bTmEN/CI9AB6YOfZ5YI4685oCuKr18FU8QE5AIGJcRJVjIndqIH4W2WA8ynUnHAiI EeScnB06aiv0/DnFfml11AoGKjFW5zZru5bWfWgpk3zi33qkFRiZLq/6DvtlPGv//Tb8jibcz wpqfGIuvvIrhYrZn0hMKPQKOoLqnztXTC04m3RYG4LCNtyUPhL6fai0DHWlqnM1KhZW9doSSB 1PIxHZCbKKT3MU32NTtZody6+wcfAjf+A3Pa3lPENmczgUvkU//Iyu1mOR/C8twayT2ez8wwc lkD8YbX Subject: Bug #72828 From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker") Hi Nikita! You have commented on : | Unless the allocations explicitly use the system allocator (i.e. do | not use emalloc and variants), do NOT introduce NULL checks. Can you please elaborate, why that shouldn't be done. Actually, the allocations use safe_emalloc() and emalloc(), respectively[1]. However, the only client of the function does explicitly check for a NULL return[2], which can only happen, if safe_emalloc() fails. So if no NULL checks should be done, this one should be removed as well. [1] [2] -- Christoph M. Becker