On 12/02/2012, at 3:53 AM, John D. Mitchell wrote: > Good morning, > > On Feb 11, 2012, at 01:51 , john skaller wrote: >> On 11/02/2012, at 8:27 PM, niXman wrote: > [...] >>> Continuing review of the libzmq code, I have found a few situations >>> when the program will be crushed on segmentation fault. >> >> It's impossible to avoid this in C. > > That's bollocks.
Let me rephrase: it is impossible for the library writer to avoid it. Actually, that is bollocks as you say. It really can be done close to 100% but you may not like the cost. > There's certainly a realm of things way out beyond the boundaries that are > beyond the reasonable control of a library like 0mq. Taking care to deal with > basic, fundamental errors of parameters to functions is NOT one of them. > This is a huge, lazy, cop out Sorry: some people favour robust programming. I'm not one of them. You just have to accept that fragile programming advocates have a point too. You may not understand it, but that's no reason to accuse those with a differing view point of being lazy or coping out. It's possible for the library to robustly check the pointers. It doesn't. Why? Because it's expensive. It's a performance hit. The library makes a cursory check .. and it's really stupid because it uses a really bad type for sockets (void* is the worst possible choice). A type based check is free. -- john skaller skal...@users.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
