Remove unnecessary null pointer checks

[elfring]

An extra null pointer check is not needed in functions like the following.

• PaymentRequestPlus::getMerchant
• Table::Open

I reported this issue for another evolving software before.

[jonasschnelli]

At least a if NULL check does not hurt.
But I agree. Feel free do open a PR.

[elfring]

Would you also like to update another software library?

[laanwj]

In Bitcoin Core we believe in belt-and-suspenders checks. A small change to the code can turn a 'unnecessary' NULL pointer check into the only thing that prevents a horrible security issue. Checking, even though not strictly necessary, may add some robustness to the API.

Also it may be hard to prove that a check is unnecessary, evaluating the code paths is a lot of review work while there are tons of more serious issues.

So let's just leave this as it is. If you can quantify that it saves time in a critical path (say an inner loop that is executed millions of times), feel free to remove an unnecessary check, but don't do so indiscriminately.

[elfring]

Checking, even though not strictly necessary, may add some robustness to the API.

Do you imagine any special case for the eventual handling of C++ compilers with a standard-incompliant implementation of the delete operator?

[laanwj]

Sure, if you encounter the code

if (x)
    delete x;

Then, according to the C++ standard, you can replace it with

delete x;

But don't do so if there is more code in the if ().

[elfring]

Why did you close this issue already?

[laanwj]

I don't see this as a serious issue.
A few extra checks won't cause bugs, nor (likely) affect performance.

[elfring]

I suggested just another small software optimisation here.

[jonasschnelli]

Please no bikeshedding on avoidable pointer checks. No need to create an issue for that (create a PR instead if you want to improve things).

[maflcko]

Isn't the compiler taking care of such?