Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
David Rees wrote:
Are you sure it's a good idea to wait until it crashes rather than fail in a controlled method? How much overhead is there to check aw->name for NULL? Can't be much...
Yes I am. Look, if the system can not alloc 1000 bytes of memory what's the purpose to continue?
Mt.
Are you joking :-) ?
No :).
It would make sense if we expect that malloc call might fail due the fact that we are trying to alloc potentially large memory and then fall back.
If we can not alloc couple of bytes from the system, then the entire system is unstable.
Or that the process that makes the malloc() has reached a configurable limit of the amount of memory it is allowed to use.
Just look at httpd or apr sources. There's almost no checks for malloc success on small objects. They are presumed to return valid memory block.
At least do an printf and exit(), coredump is never good (some systems don't collect the core - so the user will have no idea what just happened ).
Well, IMO it would fail long before our module is called. Also on first write to NULL every system will give the user a pretty good warning thought :).
MT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
