On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 06:59:12AM +, Doug Hogan wrote:
Make it clear what check implies for mallocarray. Thanks to dlg@ for
pointing this behavior out.
some take this, please.
jmc
Index: share/man/man9/malloc.9
===
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 06:59:12AM +, Doug Hogan wrote:
-objects and checks for arithmetic overflow.
+objects and calls
+.Xr panic 9
+on arithmetic overflow.
That is misleading in the M_CANFAIL case.
I'm not terribly good at wording things, but I suggest something
more like this
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:51:17AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
That is misleading in the M_CANFAIL case.
I'm not terribly good at wording things, but I suggest something
more like this instead:
Hmm I think it's only misleading in the M_CANFAIL case. I think this
diff makes it a
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 21:21, Doug Hogan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:51:17AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
That is misleading in the M_CANFAIL case.
I'm not terribly good at wording things, but I suggest something
more like this instead:
Hmm I think it's only misleading in the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 21:21, Doug Hogan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:51:17AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
That is misleading in the M_CANFAIL case.
I'm not terribly good at wording things, but I suggest something
more like this instead:
Hmm I think it's only misleading in the
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:21:39 +
From: Doug Hogan d...@acyclic.org
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:51:17AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
That is misleading in the M_CANFAIL case.
I'm not terribly good at wording things, but I suggest something
more like this instead:
Hmm I
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 00:02, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Hmm, I believe, quite strongly, that we should always panic when a
arithmetic overflow is detected.
The M_CANFAIL flag is really there to allow for failure in certain
low-memory conditions, not to recover from programming bugs.
The
