Simon Josefsson writes:
> Sam Steingold writes:
>
>> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> Bruno Haible writes:
>>>
What do the others think? Should we possibly extend stdlib.in.h so that
abort() becomes a macro that produces a detailed error message, similar to
what assert() does?
>>>
>>> Just c
Sam Steingold writes:
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Bruno Haible writes:
>>
>>> What do the others think? Should we possibly extend stdlib.in.h so that
>>> abort() becomes a macro that produces a detailed error message, similar to
>>> what assert() does?
>>
>> Just changing abort() to assert(0) would im
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Bruno Haible writes:
What do the others think? Should we possibly extend stdlib.in.h so that
abort() becomes a macro that produces a detailed error message, similar to
what assert() does?
Just changing abort() to assert(0) would improve the diagnostics
significantly.
Sound
Bruno Haible writes:
> What do the others think? Should we possibly extend stdlib.in.h so that
> abort() becomes a macro that produces a detailed error message, similar to
> what assert() does?
Just changing abort() to assert(0) would improve the diagnostics
significantly.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 6/15/2009 2:08 AM:
> What do the others think? Should we possibly extend stdlib.in.h so that
> abort() becomes a macro that produces a detailed error message, similar to
> what assert() does?
Only if you name it something
Sam Steingold wrote:
> I am not saying that abort() is wrong.
> I am saying that it must be accompanied by a meaningful message.
OK, this is a different issue.
> E.g, "Gnulib.drop_privileges_permanently: failed to drop privileges".
> Or just "Error A23Z51DT97".
> Then the user can google for the
