[patch] burncd: honour for envar SPEED

[pluknet]

2009/11/10 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no>:
> Alexander Best <alexbestms at wwu.de> writes:
>> you're right. hundreds of functions cause segfaults when arg or args
>> are NULL.  either we add safety checks for all of them (massive
>> overhead) or just leave them the way they are.
>
> The consensus in the C community is that adding such checks does more
> harm than good, because a NULL pointer is usually a symptom of a bug
> somewhere else in the application, and checking for a NULL pointer will
> either hide that bug or trigger another error somewhere down the line,
> possibly making the real bug harder to find, rather than easier.
>

And which is a way some well known OS' developers like to choose to
fix sec.holes. No cookie.
P.S. I apologize for flaming on this.

> (next week's topic: the return value of malloc(0)...)
>
> DES
> --
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des at des.no


-- 
wbr,
pluknet