On Monday 17 September 2007 10:08:37 am Dave Dodge wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:00:23AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Monday 17 September 2007 05:03, Rob Landley wrote: > > > That said, testing for NULL is seldom useful because attempts to use > > > the result give you a nice null pointer dereference and a segfault, > > > cleanly ending the program anyway. > > > > For libc, this is not acceptable. > > Yeah, this sort of abort-on-oom behavior is exactly what keeps me from > using glibc's fancy features. For example the obstack API aborts on > OOM by default. It does give the ability to set an error handler, but > that's still really not good enough because the programs where I > actually _care_ about these errors tend to be heavily threaded.
Lemme clarify: the correct thing for uClibc to do when it can't allocate requested memory is to return either NULL or -ENOMEM back to the calling program as appropriate. It's then userspace's job to test for NULL or -ENOMEM. > -Dave Dodge Rob -- "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
