Remove "redundant null check due to previous dereference" found in CodeQL scan #380
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
esabol
changed the title
SpamapS
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow sometimes maintaining gearmand feels like working on an archeological dig.
Agree with your assessment. Remove that extra check. It might even get optimized out in some cases.
Anyway, I looked at some of the calls to this and funny enough the only one I could find that uses the argv's was my own addition of --round-robin mode.
esabol
force-pushed
the
fix-redundant-null-check
branch
from
86ad810 to
a0ee78f
Compare
|
@SpamapS wrote:
Yeah, I think it would be with any good compiler. OK, I've removed the |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes an "issue" reported by the CodeQL scan of the gearmand source code. The null check on line 179 of libtest/server.cc is redundant because it has already been dereferenced on line 177 in the condition of the
forloop.I suppose the
if (argv) { ... }around theforloop could also be removed since the new condition of theforloop will also test this, but it doesn't do any harm and arguably improves clarity. I'd be willing to remove it though if you think it should be removed, @SpamapS.