Re: glibc: causes segfault in Xorg
Le 04/05/2011 16:02, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
>
>> Le 04/05/2011 14:06, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>>> a nice behaviour, it would be way better to print
>>> a warning and fallback to a correct behaviour. Users can then report the
>>> problems without experiencing a non working-application.
>>
>> Printing a warning on a thing that is potentially used everywhere,
>> especially in scripts is not a good idea. It will simply corrupt the
>> data that the othe part of the script is waiting for, and that even on
>> stderr, a lot of scripts are not (correctly?) designed for that.
>
> I don't see how this is different from the error reporting on duplicate
> free or memory list corruptions. So printing a warning does break a few
Duplicate free or memory prints an error and *aborts*, so the data it's
not propagated further. Printing a warning and continuing, means the
data is propagated further.
> bad scripts. Aborting will also break them, but it will break all the
> clean scripts and normal use cases too.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: