From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org  Mon Jan  1 10:07:38 2018
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
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 B97D1EA1995
 for <freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Mon,  1 Jan 2018 10:07:38 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811676713C
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 Jan 2018 10:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3])
 by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC88E27395;
 Mon,  1 Jan 2018 10:07:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by critter.freebsd.dk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w01A7KY0069803
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
 Mon, 1 Jan 2018 10:07:21 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: (from phk@localhost)
 by critter.freebsd.dk (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w01A7KJU069802;
 Mon, 1 Jan 2018 10:07:20 GMT (envelope-from phk)
To: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net>
cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>,
 FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of
 close(2) in base?
In-reply-to: <5AD2D86A-2515-4D4D-91B2-1919531F7CC3@dsl-only.net>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <201801010305.w0135luG084158@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
 <559541DD-3287-4473-B7DE-B4DDC6860DF7@dsl-only.net>
 <5AD2D86A-2515-4D4D-91B2-1919531F7CC3@dsl-only.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <69800.1514801240.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 10:07:20 +0000
Message-ID: <69801.1514801240@critter.freebsd.dk>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 10:07:38 -0000

--------
In message <5AD2D86A-2515-4D4D-91B2-1919531F7CC3@dsl-only.net>, Mark Milla=
rd wr
ites:

>asserts that call abort are difficult to
>guarantee specific program-exit behavior
>for, based on just the standards anyway.

One should read "assert" in a source code as a curse along the lines of
"Strike me by lightning if this is not true!"

If you want more gentle behaviour you should implement proper errorhandlin=
g.

But for all the places where you think "Nahh ... that's never going to
happen", you should document your decision with assert().

-- =

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    =

Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence=
.