From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jan 1 20:46:13 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949A2EBBE9C for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 20:46:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 582B97CEE4 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 20:46:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id x28so37064592ita.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 12:46:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=fcYVQZuHsBVX4/BzyPwRAoFMVnn/0mYLaq2cC/+BKnc=; b=VfRhxFYXV3CVbW8hz3KfUG23i6kn8IaIKlZZSyJxFlkZvJ+W0ljI3KpzzHDawXt51+ XOuurLlLbJsGK49FuMwyrtlGRK8WqBdbH8VFdHqfi8Z+6mH0v0AI2rF8EpMZBSibg8yy 6zWvGINmDTHGFC01O63pj7h2mt9VLzzDI5bXzNEaTNPaCSjn1PxXzvM8tcmfru/zW/Yr l/CtSv3Mudd6ljs085viCyrwJ5/Vr1AJocYLidLv1PgLqa14I4ko2Emun/XtXak55ine F3f0l7HcZKCjJa0uZbgCRKUw7dAdHGzNAuVGcByqggre+WGs8VqoObSu9Ua2svVrZLO9 LlOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fcYVQZuHsBVX4/BzyPwRAoFMVnn/0mYLaq2cC/+BKnc=; b=BJieM1+VrXQvanJUiLFgYZIjBtl3AN3bZGNAQx1PsN1myVBKlTnFaNX1U+KEg2Uub8 83v/v+6oA/bowTEbEiypAb+wfUhnZcXatITpWv63+aUzl6ARUIdV8MBhvMaih8QxQi91 QDSAshSgA5zKcHm/MeqdGm4S7bhXC0Nt1lABctuOND6kLECVemSFOdi6OVNqF0/w4SIu ZZPi52i3W2aKZ0FrNEfNnKf5RLXrXpntoUtXaXAODGkX5FY91z6SM3ajwRGTd09Q8bqA Z81XdSqlFu60H+LiFHVY9MqGp/gpd6AzUblwubn/U+KPCAsR4dL8UYrZaJqe8mFGKtSx VSAA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK3e+fNTrn94KTeTdK4u6+278Gb0AHzm7I3D8UWXrVcpJTiuVs3 NmDafHDiIaxnuvGROZuQAzY9+ohh/MPxUUu34adoNg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosuhIHFyCCQfrKqDMnYsu3yOwj20MXXUicxplH7EhAMbn2EBpeSCpLrMyFMKiQmtQ2dVOhRZ9owoYjSD+6tvZM= X-Received: by 10.36.164.13 with SMTP id z13mr59000674ite.115.1514839572430; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 12:46:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.108.204 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 12:46:11 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:1052:acc7:f9de:2b6d] In-Reply-To: <201801011835.w01IZWtG087572@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <79511.1514831188@critter.freebsd.dk> <201801011835.w01IZWtG087572@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 13:46:11 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LWt8oBABwsr2yGHncdkeIOgq3PU Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base? To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , FreeBSD Hackers , Larry McVoy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 20:46:13 -0000 On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > -------- > > In message <201801011755.w01HtOtD087353@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>, > "Rodney W. Gri > > mes" writes: > > > > >It further says that an assert() appeared in V6, and I bet that NDEBUG > > >didnt exist at that time. > > > > Well, I think you'll loose that bet, because the earliest copy of > assert.h > > which has been uncovered does have NDEBUG: > > > > https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/ > Research-V7-Snapshot-Development/usr/include/assert.h > > Um V7 was after V6, and is probably when asssert.h was introduced, so I > would win the bit, assert.h didnt even exist at V6. > I can go pull the hardcopy manuals and check.... be later today. > I can state with 100% certainty that neither assert nor ASSERT were defined in the existing v6 distributions available from TUHS. In pwb, such a macro exists in the malloc.c source (ASSERT), but isn't available to anything but the source/s4/malloc.c, which doesn't count as being available. I stand by my analysis that says v7 was the first time it was available. And even so, if debug wasn't defined, ASSERT was defined to be nothing. Warner