Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: [PATCH 0/3] jp: Patchset for parameter expansion segfaults
- X-seq: zsh-workers 42298
- From: Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] jp: Patchset for parameter expansion segfaults
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:58:29 -1000
- Cc: "zsh-workers@xxxxxxx" <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>, dana <dana@xxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/TxTnWTlbBCMEEILy+Pdcy/3sf1dEYHA7vc+hmWdlX4=; b=Si9z0X0JaChHgdZpjdVM7/O4gSQ9kvl+A4Liu7vq4JygJ3kfzY4oN0k1BFTqoM7Rx6 qnxscNz5gE4NKcQ2jfpmohuyRS/XB8hl5y4ajcXHARBJxkPf6eOYOhcNQcOFCAucivpJ 56mqRXI02JZnP/sdc812iU2Aqy/KWYfa2csLrr4yrX/UaNe1OIZvUXXCjTpVwrRbeyBd CQC3tgz6MUqO30dDFKIcHfraiXiFSYxtvKfk8ZsdVvBbMb3BMVTVqbREjef8zdGs8omt OSPL8767XjbNb/UBgfhW2dfOg5doJeczBpfJyjIWFftVpAchfEyW3RzjyzNaok/kvOeP DJ0Q==
- In-reply-to: <CAH+w=7YiRKwfNE9aZ-3jvQkQjwNmmnqQRyo5TGDOz80jmyioNQ@mail.gmail.com>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAH+w=7YiRKwfNE9aZ-3jvQkQjwNmmnqQRyo5TGDOz80jmyioNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:41:05PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> With appreciation for your efforts here, preventing segfaults is not
> the correct goal. The goal should be that the software produces the
> correct results.
> Trapping bad pointers in the string copy/catenate routines potentially
> masks more serious errors; it introduces what only appears to be
> error-free operation in cases that probably ought to fail. A segfault
> in zhtricat() is nearly always an indication that the calling code is
> doing something wrong, and covering that up only makes it harder to
> find what that is.
> At the very least any such "succeed in spite of caller screwup" code
> should be wrapped in #ifndef DEBUG or the like.
No worries, I understand and wholeheartedly agree with that
philosophy. It would definitely be better to go over the
calling code and figure out exactly where the wrong assumptions
are being made with respect to intended behavior.
When I have a bit more free time I'll hopefully do just that, cheers.
Description: PGP signature
Messages sorted by: