Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it should be pretty easy to write a short smatch script to find
> that occurences. Afair the smatch guys wrote one for the Linux kernel
> which would need only small adaptations. And coincidently i have this
> weekend a long flight trip on my
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:02:56AM +0100, Rolf Kalbermatter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 05:16:45PM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> > Given that it can be quite complex and introduce new bugs, and given that
> > it's really quite a useless feature IMHO as modern Linux boxes will hang
> > the
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 05:16:45PM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Given that it can be quite complex and introduce new bugs, and given that
> it's really quite a useless feature IMHO as modern Linux boxes will hang
> themselves in swap hell before returning NULL from malloc I don't think
> this should
Mike Hearn wrote:
OOM safety is a bit complicated, you have to properly unwind the stack and
restore state as you go - for instance the last patch I submitted fixed a
bug where OOM would not cause the loop to terminate, but I forgot to free
some data as we returned up the stack.
Given that it can
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 05:16:45PM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Given that it can be quite complex and introduce new bugs, and given that
> it's really quite a useless feature IMHO as modern Linux boxes will hang
> themselves in swap hell before returning NULL from malloc I don't think
> this should
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:33:38 +0100, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> I thought more of checking the return value of HeapAlloc/HeapRealloc to
> make sure it's not NULL. This would be easy to do. What you proposed is
> too complicated.
Well, what happens if it is NULL? You can print an error and then re
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:02:00 +0100, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Well, it should be pretty easy to write a short smatch script to find
that occurences. Afair the smatch guys wrote one for the Linux kernel
which would need only small adaptations.
OOM safety is a bit complicated, you
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:02:00 +0100, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> Well, it should be pretty easy to write a short smatch script to find
> that occurences. Afair the smatch guys wrote one for the Linux kernel
> which would need only small adaptations.
OOM safety is a bit complicated, you have to pro
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I thought that crashing on out of memory conditions was a valid method
of error handling in the Julliard handbook of coding, so I removed a
pointless check :)
If we're going to mandate proper checking of memory allocation, then
w
Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought that crashing on out of memory conditions was a valid method
> of error handling in the Julliard handbook of coding, so I removed a
> pointless check :)
>
> If we're going to mandate proper checking of memory allocation, then
> we need to mak
Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -if(szFilePath) {
> +if( szFilePath )
> +{
> len = MultiByteToWideChar( CP_ACP, 0, szFilePath, -1, NULL, 0 );
> szwFilePath = HeapAlloc( GetProcessHeap(), 0, len*sizeof(WCHAR) );
> -if( !szwFilePath)
> -
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Does your coding style also forbid proper error checking, or is there
another reason for removing that check?
I thought that crashing on out of memory conditions was a valid method
of error handling in the Julliard handbook of coding, so I removed a
pointless check :)
12 matches
Mail list logo
