[Python-Dev] remaining issues from Klocwork static analysis

[Neal Norwitz]

On 7/25/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> Neal Norwitz wrote:
> > We never really did address this issue did?  A while back we talked
> > about whether to assert vs check and do PyErr_BadInternalCall().  I
> > don't remember a clear resolution (though my memory).  I vaguely
> > remember a preference towards asserting, but I don't know if that was
> > in all cases or maybe it was just my preference. :-)
> >
> > I'm happy to assert here too.  But it's really a broader question.  I
> > guess I'm even happy to just remove the X.  It would be nice to handle
> > this consistently going forward.
>
> I would just remove the X.

I'll do that here since it's the easiest.

> If we want to handle it consistently, we would have to check all pointer
> parameters in all functions; this would be a huge task (and for little
> value, IMO).

I'm not suggesting changing existing code, unless we find issues.  I
agree that it would be a huge task and of little value.  I was
thinking about for future code.  I guess we aren't writing a lot of
new C APIs in 2.x, so it really doesn't much there matter.  Though for
3k, it would be nice to make it consistent as new APIs are written or
old APIs are cleaned up.

n