From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org  Wed Jan 10 10:48:00 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 09F19E786D3
 for <freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:48:00 +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 AFC306DAC3;
 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:47:59 +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 D187D27374;
 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:47:55 +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 w0AAlehg021077
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:47:40 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: (from phk@localhost)
 by critter.freebsd.dk (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w0AAlbkk021076;
 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:47:37 GMT (envelope-from phk)
To: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>
cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>,
 Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>,
 Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>,
 Freebsd hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>,
 Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>
Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of
 close(2) in base?
In-reply-to: <b7d5cc97-2042-42ff-914c-35a28560932b@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <201801081800.w08I0D0q022877@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
 <b7d5cc97-2042-42ff-914c-35a28560932b@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <21074.1515581257.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:47:37 +0000
Message-ID: <21075.1515581257@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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:48:00 -0000

--------
In message <b7d5cc97-2042-42ff-914c-35a28560932b@freebsd.org>, Stefan Esse=
r wri
tes:

>> Ok, so lets get a bit more clever,
>> #ifdef DEBUG_CLOSE
>> #define	close(f)	assert(close(f) && errno !=3D EBADF)
>> #endif
>
>This will lead to close() being removed from the program,
>if NDEBUG is defined ...
>
>So, at least test for NDEBUG in addition to DEBUG_CLOSE,
>to enable this macro.

More importantly, it will lead to the assert failing if close(2)
succeeds...

The NDEBUG details is easiest solved by:

	#undef NDEBUG			// assert()'s not to be removed
	#include <assert.h>

-- =

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=
.