> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:56:21 +0200 (CEST), Fredrik Modéen wrote >> this are how it's setup to work, it's only part of it but it showas what >> i'm talkning about. >> >> ... >> >> void >> IconView::_SetIcon(BBitmap* mini) >> { >> BAppFileInfo info(); >> if (mini != NULL || force) >> info.SetIconForType(fType.Type(), mini, B_MINI_ICON); >> } > > In that case you would just track down what SetIconForType() does. If it > copies the bitmap, then you're fine. Otherwise this is probably a false > positive. > > It seems that you are not subscribed to the commits mailing list. Please > make > sure you are subscribed, as we are sometimes replying to commits there > like I > did for your change in r27438: Ah yes in deed I need to subscribe to that list (done now..) > > https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/haiku-commits/2008-September/016893.html > > You make the same assumption that new cannot fail in r27448 which I find a > bad > idea. You could say that it is true that new cannot return NULL, since it > should actually throw an error and not return NULL. However this is not a > reason to strip the NULL checks, but to make new into new(std::nothrow) > which > actually returns NULL on a failed allocation (which can always happen). I > thought we had the general consensus that we use new(std::nothrow) and > always > check the result, but I'm not sure how the other see it. So it would be better to try to make a new new when I found a null like this if (_fDevice == NULL) _fDevice = new BList(); if(_fDevice != NULL){ continue.. } or some thing similar. > > Regards > Michael > > -- MVH Fredrik Modéen