With APR pools, the accepted coding style is to assume apr_palloc() never fails - applications can and install an abort function using apr_pool_create_ex() which is invoked if the underlying memory allocation ever fails.

With APR pools, the accepted coding style is to assume apr_palloc() never fails - applications can and install an abort function using apr_pool_create_ex() which is invoked if the underlying memory allocation ever fails.

Thank you for your kind reply and explanation!
I also thought the assumption is apr_palloc() never fails. However, I made the PR because I found some code snippets in the repo that indeed check for the possible null pointers.

For example:

So I thought it might be good to follow a consistent assumption?

I must admit that I didn't have experience contributing to the APR repo before. My apologies if my understanding is inaccurate, and thank you again for your time!

You're right that not all APR code follows the convention, unfortunately.