[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn_pool_xxx vs apr_pool_xxx

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2003-08-15 22:22:17 CEST

On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 03:45:31PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 15:41, Sander Striker wrote:
> > It's specific to all the clients we produce. If someone uses our libraries,
> > we shouldn't force our abort handler upon them. They may not want that.
>
> You haven't built a case for this assertion. What else would an
> application possibly want? It might want our libraries to be better
> behaved (i.e. to return an error on allocation failure), but it can't
> have that right now. "We produce a SIGSEGV on allocation failure" is
> strictly worse than "we produce a SIGABRT on allocation failure."

Actually, that is "We *may* produce a SIGSEGV on allocation failure, but we
could also behave very, very strangely. Possibly corrupting data. We don't
know, but hey... it is your choice."

I'll take the SIGABRT any day at the *exact* spot where memory was not
available.

Yes, we're a library, and yes, it isn't optimal behavior. But I'm *very*
leery of not having the abort in there.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 15 22:14:13 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.