[#444] io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...>

I am encountering a problem similar to the one mentioned here,

19 messages 2002/09/06
[#453] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — nobu.nokada@... 2002/09/08

Hi,

[#454] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2002/09/09

Hi

[#469] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2002/09/09

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:55:13PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#479] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2002/09/10

On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:04:10AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:

[#492] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2002/09/21

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:23:33AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:

Re: Should we check alloca ret val?

From: kjana@...4lab.to (YANAGAWA Kazuhisa)
Date: 2002-09-04 10:40:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #432
In message <200209031504.g83F4C630961@sharui.nakada.kanuma.tochigi.jp>
nobu.nokada@softhome.net writes:

> > 	Shouldn't we do something like: if (!mem) raise_something()? (I
> > 	know that it is a slowdown, but we can catch few segfaults by
> > 	this...)
> 
> If alloca() were failed, it doesn't always return NULL.

Yes, at least there are platforms clearly describing alloca()ing
memory over stack limit causes undefined behavior.


However,
  - successful alloca() doesn't return NULL, and
  - BSD derived imlplementations seems returning NULL on failure.

so checking return value of alloca() is still somewhat worthy.

# At least that doesn't affect program's semantics.


-- 
kjana@dm4lab.to                              September 4, 2002
Abstract should not be abstract.

In This Thread

Prev Next