Re: [xml] A long URL causes SEGV

[Igor Zlatkovic <igor zlatkovic com>]

Daniel Veillard wrote:
>   The C spec itself.
>   There is an awful lot of code relying on the order of such compound
> test, like for example
>    if ((p != NULL) && (*p != 0))
> you have the right to expect that if p is NULL the dereference will not occur.
> It's the same for the test you pointed out, and in a lot of places in libxml2
> code.

For reasons not even known to me, I have lived under assumption that the 
compiler might perhaps take the freedom to reorder the execution of 
those tests. Doing so would not affect the logic of the whole expression 
and the compiler just might think it would help some of its mysterious 
and aggressive optimisation steps. Those were my thoughts. It was never 
really important, somehow. Now, thinking of it, for years I made code 
which leaves the compiler a freedom the compiler would never take :-)

See, I know what the compiler does. I just never knew wether the 
compiler must do it, or it just happen to do it.

Hm, instead of rereading some official info, I have believed another 
urban myth which I created for myself without ever noticing. So read the 
docs, folks, or you'll end up like me. :-) :-)

Thanks for the answer, all of you.

Ciao,
Igor