Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 16:14:33 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base? Message-ID: <78982.1514823273@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <510305A9-460C-407F-B2FC-3521A6E1D78B@dsl-only.net> References: <201801010305.w0135luG084158@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <559541DD-3287-4473-B7DE-B4DDC6860DF7@dsl-only.net> <69781.1514800992@critter.freebsd.dk> <510305A9-460C-407F-B2FC-3521A6E1D78B@dsl-only.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <510305A9-460C-407F-B2FC-3521A6E1D78B@dsl-only.net>, Mark Milla= rd wr ites: >None of us invented assert as it was >first historically created or as it is >in the standards. Asserts are way older than UNIX. >If one wants to use assert, then >instead of: Just do: #undef NDEBUG #include <assert.h> But this is bikeshedding at this point anyway. The important thing is this: Yes, you should check the return value of close(2) (except possibly for the special cases of stdin/-out/-err) and if you are sure they will never fail, doing so with an assert makes sense. Over&Out -- = 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= .
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?78982.1514823273>