From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jan 1 17:55:29 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 60A29EB4F9D for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 17:55:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2324E75C80 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 17:55:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id w01HtP4K087354; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 09:55:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id w01HtOtD087353; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 09:55:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201801011755.w01HtOtD087353@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base? In-Reply-To: <20180101165718.GI4678@mcvoy.com> To: Larry McVoy Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 09:55:24 -0800 (PST) CC: Poul-Henning Kamp , FreeBSD Hackers X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 18:05:25 +0000 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 17:55:29 -0000 > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 08:52:57AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 04:14:33PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > > But this is bikeshedding at this point anyway. > > > > > > +1 > > > > Bike shedding is good, people learn things from it. I never knew that > > assert was altered by NDEBUG for example, thanks for that enlightenment > > Um, does the FreeBSD man page not start like the Linux man page with > > If the macro NDEBUG was defined at the moment was last > included, the macro assert() generates no code, and hence does nothing > at all. > > ? It further says that an assert() appeared in V6, and I bet that NDEBUG didnt exist at that time. I dont read man pages for something I have been using for 20+ years. Further investage leads me to learn that Turing and von Neumann both wrote of assertions, so maybe my old finger memory has been broken by standards that arrose long after I learned how to do "check error codes" when calling functions, even if they seem impossible or improbable. > And bikeshedding has the effect of making people hit the delete key. I've > deleted without reading about 80% of this thread. So if there was signal > in that 80%, I for one, did not get it. :-( And people wont even engage in disucssions sighting "oh that well just be a bike shed." So rather than having discussions we have anarchy. So lets have a bikeshed on bikesheds? > And the amount of back and forth on something that is this basic is sort > of mind numbing. As a new person on FreeBSD it doesn't show the project > in a good light. Just sayin. Basics are as important as fine details, and given the disparity that occured during this "bikeshead" it shows that there are even wide spread opionions on the very basics of if you should check error returns from function calls, and what ways there are of doing that. Mind numbing, perhaps, pointless, no I do not believe so. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org