e9/a3fa00bad4e7ddf6c8f46006770d44805cf32d

   1 Return-Path: <amdragon@mit.edu>\r
   2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
   5         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266C4431FD0\r
   6         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:49:10 -0700 (PDT)\r
   7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
   8 X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
   9 X-Spam-Score: -0.7\r
  10 X-Spam-Level: \r
  11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
  12         tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled\r
  13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
  14         by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
  15         with ESMTP id 3BHd+NCIC4h7 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
  16         Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT)\r
  17 Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-8.MIT.EDU\r
  18         [18.7.68.37])\r
  19         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984F6431FB6\r
  20         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT)\r
  21 X-AuditID: 12074425-b7f116d0000008fe-c2-4e848564eca6\r
  22 Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39])\r
  23         by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP\r
  24         id 42.CF.02302.465848E4; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:49:09 -0400 (EDT)\r
  25 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103])\r
  26         by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p8TEn88i010557; \r
  27         Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:49:08 -0400\r
  28 Received: from awakening.csail.mit.edu (awakening.csail.mit.edu [18.26.4.91])\r
  29         (authenticated bits=0)\r
  30         (User authenticated as amdragon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)\r
  31         by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p8TEn6E5016066\r
  32         (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);\r
  33         Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:49:07 -0400 (EDT)\r
  34 Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.72)\r
  35         (envelope-from <amdragon@mit.edu>)\r
  36         id 1R9HxR-0006p7-Ti; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:51:29 -0400\r
  37 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:51:29 -0400\r
  38 From: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>\r
  39 To: Ali Polatel <polatel@gmail.com>\r
  40 Subject: Re: Concerns regarding some library functions\r
  41 Message-ID: <20110929145129.GB17905@mit.edu>\r
  42 References: <871uv2unfd.fsf@gmail.com> <87fwjhx6p5.fsf@convex-new.cs.unb.ca>\r
  43         <20110927224622.GR17905@mit.edu> <877h4tyug1.fsf@gmail.com>\r
  44 MIME-Version: 1.0\r
  45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
  46 Content-Disposition: inline\r
  47 In-Reply-To: <877h4tyug1.fsf@gmail.com>\r
  48 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)\r
  49 X-Brightmail-Tracker:\r
  50  H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuphleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRYrdT101tbfEz6P7NYXGjtZvR4vrNmcwW\r
  51         fXu+sTowe+ycdZfd49mqW8weWw69Zw5gjuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK+PLlIUvBI96Klb93sjcw\r
  52         fuDqYuTkkBAwkWh7/YIVwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMA+Rom3f/vYQRJCAhsYJWbttoVInGSS+LXg\r
  53         DzOEs4RRYtvtu0wgVSwCqhILJuwE62AT0JDYtn85YxcjB4eIgLJE3/ZEkDCzgJ3Eke9dYGFh\r
  54         ATOJVwvlQMK8AjoSTW+mMUKM7GOUuNyygxEiIShxcuYTFoheLYkb/14ygfQyC0hLLP/HARLm\r
  55         FFCXOPvnAzOILSqgInFtfzvbBEahWUi6ZyHpnoXQvYCReRWjbEpulW5uYmZOcWqybnFyYl5e\r
  56         apGuhV5uZoleakrpJkZwoLuo7mCccEjpEKMAB6MSD++PpGY/IdbEsuLK3EOMkhxMSqK8m5ta\r
  57         /IT4kvJTKjMSizPii0pzUosPMUpwMCuJ8PoXAOV4UxIrq1KL8mFS0hwsSuK8r3c4+AkJpCeW\r
  58         pGanphakFsFkZTg4lCR4z7cANQoWpaanVqRl5pQgpJk4OEGG8wANfwBSw1tckJhbnJkOkT/F\r
  59         qCglznsFJCEAksgozYPrhSWiV4ziQK8I854DqeIBJjG47ldAg5mABn8tbAQZXJKIkJJqYNQs\r
  60         enJu+rKQxrr41oorbtPKVnJJXOFsvbuw4v/emAs15js/XCubUCi44fdBeZf1d3T7AndIKXA3\r
  61         fp67KnIiU2jszZ9CSTNnvnGfxpbzdO+5rWcmLU9v7NpiOjHqHoP82WmaiyN+fvHQCSp5Eutp\r
  62         l5T45KCm8+RaXsugW5V7asPs91XpcLBXOiuxFGckGmoxFxUnAgBnF3+2HwMAAA==\r
  63 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  64 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  65 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
  66 Precedence: list\r
  67 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
  68         <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
  69 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
  70         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
  71 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
  72 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  73 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
  74 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
  75         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
  76 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:49:10 -0000\r
  77 \r
  78 Quoth Ali Polatel on Sep 28 at 10:53 am:\r
  79 > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:46:22 -0400, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:\r
  80 > > Quoth David Bremner on Sep 27 at  1:59 pm:\r
  81 > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:25:58 +0300, Ali Polatel <polatel@gmail.com> wrote:\r
  82 > > > \r
  83 > > > > The problem with their design is NULL return may both mean an error\r
  84 > > > > condition and "message not found". However, we already have a similar\r
  85 > > > > function which does not have such a flaw, namely notmuch_database_add_message().\r
  86 > > > \r
  87 > > > So, I take there is no way to distinguish those two outcomes? That does\r
  88 > > > sound bad. Looking at the code for notmuch-new, it looks like the return\r
  89 > > > value of notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename is used without\r
  90 > > > checking it for NULL.  Austin, can you comment on that at all?\r
  91 > > \r
  92 > > I'd be happy to distinguish these outcomes.  I did\r
  93 > > notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename the way I did only to be\r
  94 > > consistent with notmuch_database_find_message.  Since ndfmbf isn't\r
  95 > > entrenched yet, now is a good time to change it.\r
  96 > \r
  97 > What about notmuch_database_find_message()? If we leave it as it is,\r
  98 > this will lead to inconsistency and if we change it, we need to think\r
  99 > about API breakage issues.\r
 100 \r
 101 Yes.  We could just deal with that (there aren't *that* many API\r
 102 consumers).  For binary compatibility, I suppose we could even use\r
 103 symbol versioning.\r
 104 \r
 105 > > The call in notmuch-new should check the return, though if it can't\r
 106 > > find the message at that point, something has gone terribly wrong.\r
 107 > > Segfaulting is never the answer, though.\r
 108 > \r
 109 > Indeed, just not to step on each other's feet, are you going to write a\r
 110 > patch or shall I start writing one?\r
 111 \r
 112 Please feel free to write a patch.\r