Re: Strange argc check in stable snapshot

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Jenkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:14 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Strange argc check in stable snapshot
> 
> 
> Berger, Daniel wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Steven Jenkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>Maybe a good idea nonetheless. It might catch a bug 
> someday. Nothing 
> >>*guarantees* that argc is nonnegative, not even for main().
> > 
> > I'll pledge $100 to RubyCentral immediately if someone can actually 
> > demonstrate how this might occur.
> > 
> > And no, assigning a negative value to argc directly doesn't 
> count. :-P
> 
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>      if (argc < 0)
>          return 0;
>      else
>          main(-1, 0);
> }
> 
> This is perfectly legal C. There's nothing special about 
> main() except 
> that the loader uses it as the entry point. Any other 
> function can call 
> it, including itself.
> 
> The argc in question is nonnegative by convention only. Someone could 
> just make a mistake and call it with the wrong argument.
> 
> Steve

Not exactly what I meant, but I'll donate $100 anyway.  I would consider
specifying argc manually a BUG.  At the very least, it's really crappy
code and not the sort of thing I would make an explicit check for.  I
would force a change in the offending caller's code.

Dan