On Sunday 23 December 2007 01:26:08 Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Saturday 2007-12-22 at 18:09 +0100, Anders Johansson wrote: > >> Actually, it helps solve it, sometimes. The application crashes, > >> probably > > > > I wouldn't say "probably". It shouldn't be par for the course for an > > application to not check return values from memory allocation functions > > That's not what I said. Look again: > > ] The application crashes, probably > ] with an error, maybe a core dump or a backtrace, and it can be examined. > > There is a comma after the "crashes". > > I didn't say that it "probably crashes". I said that it will > crash, and then probably will produce an error message. > > The idea is that an application that has a memory hole and uses a lot of > memory doesn't crash, but by running with an "ulimit" it will crash when > it hits the limit, ant then the error, coredump, or backtrace can be > examined.
Well, the idea might work, but I still say that you're too dogmatic. Even an application that forgets to free() memory can still test the return code from malloc() properly. It's not a given that it will crash. It might just exit normally, without a core being produced Anders -- Madness takes its toll -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
