On 27 November 2006 at 14:30, "Oleg Khaschansky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's a moot question ... GPF-ing is unacceptable known behavior. > I am not sure if we should guarantee the correct behavior in case of > invalid system configuration, missing libraries, etc. Should we?
I don't think anyone is expecting correct behaviour in the case of errors. That would be pretty impressive. ;-) In this case, however, the configuration is actually valid/normal and I think users could reasonably expect the code to run correctly. I do think we must try to raise reasonable errors rather than just SIGSEGV. Just think how much more quickly this issue would hav been resolved if a helpful error message was returned when I first mentioned this back in early October. Regards, Mark. > On 11/24/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oleg Khaschansky wrote: > > > Do you suggest to introduce the error handling for all the wrappers or > > > only for this one? If for all, do you think if it will affect the > > > performance? > > > > That's a moot question ... GPF-ing is unacceptable known behavior. > > > > > The only place is that native code :) I need some time to find out if > > > it is possible to get the tool which generated it to harmony. > > > > That's ok, I was just respecting the source file comment. Since we have > > what we have in harmony I'll edit it directly. > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > -- > > > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > > >
