[Oisf-devel] Source code technical question

[Duarte Silva]

Hi all,

in "util-host-os-info.c", functions "SCHInfoValidateIPV4Address"and 
"SCHInfoValidateIPV6Address" are exaclty the same as "util-radix-tree.c" 
functions "SCRadixValidateIPV4Address" and "SCRadixValidateIPV6Address".

With a small exception in "SCHInfoValidateIPV4Address", it doesn't exit if the 
memory allocation fails.

Would it be a good idea to merge this functions?

Best regards,
Duarte

On Wednesday 24 July 2013 15:10:46 Duarte Silva wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 15:47:19 Victor Julien wrote:
> > On 07/24/2013 03:21 PM, Duarte Silva wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I was dwelling into Suricata source code and came across this:
> > > 
> > > #define DEBUG_ASSERT_FLOW_LOCKED(f) do {            \
> > > 
> > >     if ((f) != NULL) {                              \
> > >     
> > >         int r = SCMutexTrylock(&(f)->m);            \
> > >         if (r == 0) {                               \
> > >         
> > >             BUG_ON(1);                              \
> > >         
> > >         }                                           \
> > >     
> > >     }                                               \
> > > 
> > > } while(0)
> > > 
> > > Just wondering, whats the advantage of having this inside a do/while? Is
> > > it
> > > because the compiler will optimize it out if not in a debug build?
> > 
> > Answers can be found on stackoverflow:
> > 
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/923822/whats-the-use-of-do-while0-when-> > we -define-a-macro
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/154136/do-while-and-if-else-statements-> > i
> > n-c-c-macros
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/257418/do-while-0-what-is-it-good-for
> 
> Thanks Victor, I should have googled it :D it never crossed my mind it had
> anything to do with semi-colons and code blocks. I allways use brackets even
> for one instruction if's. Hence, when the macro required a code block I
> just used brackets (it was the Microsoft compiler though, might be
> different from GCC).
> 
> Thanks,
> Duarte