https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290
--- Comment #17 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> --- (In reply to Roger Light from comment #15) > Thanks for the comments and review. > > I think adding greater capability for controlling where and when failures > occur, and adding syscall support could turn this into a really useful tool. > I don't think that should take away from there already is though. > > How about renaming to "failcheck" for example, and rewriting a load of the > text to make it clear the tool is about failure checking in general and at > the moment considers heap allocation failures, then expanding the scope once > you are happy with everything as it stands. Without some more control on when to start creating failures, the tool will limited to very small applications : big apps quickly have several thousands different alloc stack traces. So, IMO, too early to push in upstream : introducing a new tool has a cost in terms of integrating the patches, and then implies a (forever) cost (maintenance, additional build time, etc ...), and this cost will very probably not be compensated by very usable functionalities. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
