On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 12:16:21AM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 12:04:27AM +0100, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> >
> > I didn't analyze at the others, because the patches don't carry enough
> > context with them, but this change looks adventurous to me. What would
> > be the point of not testing for a NULL pointer before memsetting, thus
> > getting a SEGV instead of whatever assert() uses?
> 
> As written above, sizeof(*ei) == 0, the memset is a nop.

Ah... I shouldn't post at this time of the night. Sorry.

	-is

-- 
seal your e-mail: http://www.gnupg.org/