Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: pete@iris49.UUCP (Pete Ware)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: XtAddInput returns; error checking in general
Message-ID: <9102141628.AA03719@iris49.biosym.com>
Date: 14 Feb 91 16:28:16 GMT
References: <64840@brunix.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 16

jim> But, I see a subsequent call to XtNew(), which calls malloc().
jim> XtAddInput() then uses the result without checking for a valid
jim> pointer.  It is this pointer that is returned as the XtInputId.
jim> Putting aside the fact that the current implementation of
jim> XtAddInput() will crash if the allocation fails, should I check
jim> for a NULL return?  or should this truly be considered opaque?

XtMalloc() calls XtErrorMsg() if the allocation fails.  For better or
worse, XtErrorMsg() is for fatal errors and the application exits.  In
other words, XtMalloc() exits instead of returning NULL.

--pete

Pete Ware / Biosym / San Diego CA / (619) 546-5532
uucp:	  scripps.edu!bioc1!pete
Internet: bioc1!pete@scripps.edu