Aarno Syvänen wrote:
And I cannot agree more, actually. But auditing takes time. Until it is done, --disable-panics will be of some use.
now, yes, auditing takes some time. But it's the way to go, IMO. Simply adding a configure switch would cause in unstable internal state if a function hits the panic() button and we keep the beast running, since the logic has in mind that the beast is supposed to die now.
You could #idef things inside panic() to prevent it from panic'ing, if it's up for a fast solution.
If we add the configure switch, I almost see "unnecessary" bug reports rushing in that have their cause from such situations. Which I'd like definetly to prevent.
Hence, -0 to -1 in simply "blind-mode" preventing panic() stops here. +1 on auditing and making Kalle's dream come true: a genuine panic() policy ;)
Stipe
mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG
Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
phone: +49.211.74845.0 fax: +49.211.74845.299
mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de http://www.wapme-systems.de/ -------------------------------------------------------------------
