delete of NULL pointer is noop, so no need to check #48499

New Issue

Lawrence D'Oliveiro · 2016-05-23T02:35:48+02:00

2016-05-23 02:35:48 +02:00

In C++, it is unnecessary to check for non-NULL before invoking delete:

if (foo) delete foo;

can be more simply written as

delete foo;

(Ref: section 5.3.5 of the C++98 spec, paragraph 2.)

This patch just fixes some initial cases I came across; no doubt there are others waiting to be found.

0001-delete-of-NULL-pointer-is-noop-so-no-need-to-check.patch

In C++, it is unnecessary to check for non-`NULL` before invoking `delete`: ``` if (foo) delete foo; ``` can be more simply written as ``` delete foo; ``` (Ref: section 5.3.5 of the C++98 spec, paragraph 2.) This patch just fixes some initial cases I came across; no doubt there are others waiting to be found. [0001-delete-of-NULL-pointer-is-noop-so-no-need-to-check.patch](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F314348/0001-delete-of-NULL-pointer-is-noop-so-no-need-to-check.patch)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2016-05-23 02:35:48 +02:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2016-05-23 02:35:48 +02:00

Added subscriber: @ldo

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-23 09:24:45 +02:00

Added subscriber: @mont29

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-23 09:24:45 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Bastien Montagne closed this issue

2016-05-23 09:24:45 +02:00

Bastien Montagne self-assigned this 2016-05-23 09:24:45 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-23 09:24:45 +02:00

Please do not recreate same task I just closed, this is uselessly rude. I already answered, and this has nothing to do on our tracker anyway. If you want more info/discussion about it, use IRC or ML.

Please **do not** recreate same task I just closed, this is uselessly rude. I already answered, and this has nothing to do on our tracker anyway. If you want more info/discussion about it, use IRC or ML.

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-23 09:25:30 +02:00

Not to mention this is a totally harmless style issue, nothing actually wrong with this code!

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2016-05-23 13:08:56 +02:00

Changed status from 'Archived' to: 'Open'

Lawrence D'Oliveiro reopened this issue

2016-05-23 13:08:56 +02:00

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2016-05-23 13:08:56 +02:00

This is not the same task.

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-23 13:13:46 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Bastien Montagne closed this issue

2016-05-23 13:13:46 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-23 13:13:46 +02:00

This is exactly the same task as #48491. Please let task triaging to developpers and stop reopening them and making noise in tracker, we do not need this!

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2016-05-24 01:15:24 +02:00

Are you saying the GHOST code is off limits for patches as well?

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-24 08:10:36 +02:00

Changed status from 'Archived' to: 'Open'

Bastien Montagne reopened this issue

2016-05-24 08:10:36 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2016-05-24 08:10:36 +02:00

sigh… Next time, please mention what your patch is about (what piece of code it affects) in the report… Sorry, but this report looked totally the same as #48491, so no, did not think about looking at patch file itself. GHOST is maintained by us indeed, and totally eligible to patches submission.

About patch itself, looks good, but please try to respect indentation, and replace 0 by NULL for pointer assignments. ;)

*sigh…* Next time, please mention what your patch is about (what piece of code it affects) in the report… Sorry, but this report looked totally the same as #48491, so no, did not think about looking at patch file itself. GHOST **is** maintained by us indeed, and totally eligible to patches submission. About patch itself, looks good, but please try to respect indentation, and replace `0` by `NULL` for pointer assignments. ;)

Sergey Sharybin commented

2016-05-24 08:58:12 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Sergey