Re: [PATCH 15/67] convert trivial sprintf / strcpy calls to xsnprintf

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That misses the "assert" behavior of xsnprintf.

When I saw the first patches of this series, I like them.

Some off topic thoughts:

Having an "assert" behavior is not a good user experience though
and should be fixed. To fix it we need stack traces. And the git
version. And telling the user to send it to the mailing list.

I wonder if we want to include a trace where possible (i.e.
when compiled with gcc or other precompiler conditions)
into these assertive behaviors.
I'd guess we have an assertive behavior if die("BUG:...") is called,
so maybe we can just check inside of die if we want to print
a stack trace additionally ?

In my dream world we would have a similar mechanism as in
the kernel, a "BUG:..." will be automatically sent to some
collection agency via UDP.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]