[flashrom] [PATCH] CID1130005: Array compared against 0

[Stefan Tauner]

On Thu, 08 May 2014 23:24:22 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> Am 08.05.2014 23:11 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > On Thu, 08 May 2014 22:51:43 +0200
> > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 08.05.2014 18:56 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> >>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:35:57 +0100
> >>> Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer at coreboot.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> CID1130005: Array compared against 0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The address of an array is never NULL, so the comparison will always evaluate
> >>>>> the same way.
> >>>>> In selfcheck: Array compared against NULL pointer
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since the array is defined unconditionally in C code the check does not really
> >>>>> make sense. It might make more sense to check whether there are entries in the
> >>>>> array, but that is not required on all platforms so far.
> >>> Thanks for reporting this. I have attached by approach to fix this.
> >>> IMHO it makes no sense to check the array outside its compilation unit.
> >>> That's just stupid. Instead I move the checks of the flashchips array
> >>> from flashrom.c to flashchips.c and remove all others that are futile
> >>> anyway.
> >> NACK. flashchips.c should only have data, not code.
> > Says who, and more importantly why? :)
> 
> I say that.
> The file is called flashchips.c and not
> flashchip_definitions_and_functions.c. For example, we could split
> flashchips.c and add each group of chips to the associated driver file,
> e.g. spi25.c. If we indeed start introducing code to flashchips.c, we
> might as well kill the separation altogether. Besides that, right now
> that file is nicely grepable and can be processed easily with Unix
> command line tools for texts. I used that often in the past, and having
> to use head/tail in addition to grep just to weed out the non-data stuff
> is not exactly the kind of fun I'm looking for.
> 
> I hope the reasons above are not totally unreasonable.

Not completely unreasonable but I don't buy them. Anyway, what about
exporting the size of the array to a global variable?

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner