Dear Joe,
In message CANr=Z=bxwwKkpUa_UzegN=E=TuqzeNUDTtZe7fDC+iCU9B6+3g@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
- Handle this locally, say like that:
...
I think this solution is not needed. In this particular case, we are always printing the pointer to a member inside the fdt, so even if the image is at 0, no pointer that we are printing will ever be at 0. Therefore this is code that will never run and can be left out.
If we would decide for this variant, such reasoning should be explained in a comment.
Would anybody shed any tears if we drop this?
Getting rid of this would be good in general IMO. I never did understand why printing "(null)" was better than "0".
I guess for the same reasons we are forced^W encouraged to write NULL instead of 0 .
In the standard C library it certainly makes sense to note specifically if one tries to dereference a NULL pointer, because this is aways a bug.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk