On Thursday 17 December 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> As a maintainer I would summarize the status quo as(and there
> are no plans to change this):
>
> - accept all clean patches to fix propagation of error handling.
> malloc() is just one example of broken error propagation
>
> - leave malloc()'s as-is meanwhile, we have tools to identify
> the cases where we're missing malloc() checks. Do not introduce
> a new function to mark the sites.
Right.
By the way ... that
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.jackit/19998
URL highlighted:
> Does that mean it never makes sense to write OOM-safe userspace code?
> No. For very low-level system daemons, such as udev or the init system
> itself clean OOM handling is important. And in some embedded
> appliances that is true too.
That last sentence is relevant here -- we have at least one
embedded appliance configuration. For that matter, so is
the next-to-last one -- JTAG is lower level than those two
examples. :)
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
