On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 20:15, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > On 01 Sep 2010, at 6:07 AM, dave b wrote: > > > >> What is the rational behind not checking the return value of > >> apr_palloc and apr_pcalloc? > > > > The rationale is to not be forced to check for and handle hundreds of > > potential failure cases when you're probably doomed anyway. > > > > The APR pools API gives you the apr_pool_abort_set() function, which > > specifies a function to call if the memory allocation fails. In the case > of > > httpd, a function is registered which gracefully shuts down that > particular > > server process if the allocation fails, and apr_palloc() is in the > process > > guaranteed to never return NULL. > > Noting that apr_pool_abort_set() is only setup in Apache 2.3 and not > in Apache 2.2.16 or earlier. Not being in 2.X explains why I couldn't > find it before. > > Any reason why setting up apr_pool_abort_set() wasn't back ported to Apache > 2.2? > dunno, but here's the commit and original discussion in case anyone wants to read http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=406953 (dunno if it was subsequently fixed) http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@httpd.apache.org/msg32257.html > > Graham > > > Obviously if you're not using APR from httpd, or if you're writing a > library > > that depends on APR, and you haven't set an abort function, NULL will > > potentially be returned and you should check for and handle that case. > > > > Regards, > > Graham > > -- > > > > > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien...
