Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:25:03 -0500 (CDT) From: "Sean C. Farley" <sean-freebsd@farley.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org>, arch@FreeBSD.org, Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN Message-ID: <20070512170737.F7595@thor.farley.org> In-Reply-To: <20070512160859.T63806@fledge.watson.org> References: <20070504213312.GA33163@nagual.pp.ru> <20070504174657.D1343@thor.farley.org> <20070505213202.GA49925@nagual.pp.ru> <20070505163707.J6670@thor.farley.org> <20070505221125.GA50439@nagual.pp.ru> <20070506091835.A43775@besplex.bde.org> <20070508162458.G6015@baba.farley.org> <20070508222521.GA59534@nagual.pp.ru> <20070509200000.B56490@besplex.bde.org> <20070510184447.H4969@baba.farley.org> <20070511003443.GA6422@nagual.pp.ru> <20070511182126.U9004@baba.farley.org> <20070512160859.T63806@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Robert Watson wrote: > On Fri, 11 May 2007, Sean C. Farley wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 May 2007, Andrey Chernov wrote: <snip> >>> I suggest to change errx() to warnx()+return(failure). >> >> No need to worry any longer; I changed them into warnx(). What value >> should I give errno? I do not want the program to receive a random >> error code. The first warnx() could be EINVAL. The second warnx() >> would be a coding error on my part. EDOOFUS would fit. :) I know I >> should not use it. EINVAL? > > Actually, I'm not convinced that crashing the program isn't the right > answer. If an application corrupts memory managed by libc or other > libraries, crashing is generally considered an entirely acceptable > failure mode. There are two scenarios when rebuilding the environment for the first time that I am using warnx/errx: 1. The user supplied an environ where a variable is missing an "=value" portion. 2. The code I wrote did not work as expected. Is your thought that since the API has no means (specification-wise) to inform the user that something is wrong that an exit should/may be performed? To stick with the specification, I see why errx() would be desired. In addition, malloc() can handle a double-free and still run correctly. For environ, if it is incorrect, the code will never allow *env() to succeed. Sean -- sean-freebsd@farley.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070512170737.F7595>