(
Jump to the original submission)
Tue 27 Mar 2012 06:58:02 AM UTC, comment #8:
Closing, has been fixed in my tree will push when able.
When you have a test case for inetutils where things fail with printf, please open a new bug.
|
Mon 26 Mar 2012 09:00:53 PM UTC, comment #7:
How do you think about a test example from an other software project?
|
Mon 26 Mar 2012 05:54:25 PM UTC, comment #6:
Please show a real world test case, with a shell script reproducing the issue.
Please move discussions regarding development methodologies to bug-inetutils@gnu.org, this is a bug tracker not a discussion list.
|
Mon 26 Mar 2012 05:38:13 PM UTC, comment #5:
How does your software behave if it would be connected to a full output device?
How do you think about to apply aspect-oriented software development?
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/
http://research.msrg.utoronto.ca/ACC/Tutorial#A_Reusable_Aspect_for_Memory_All
http://aspectc.org/
|
Mon 26 Mar 2012 05:19:37 PM UTC, comment #4:
If you can show a real world or plausible test case where things fail because of not checking the return value for printf, then we are all ears (but your system will be so horribly broken by that time that you won't be able to do anything anyway).
The cases with malloc are valid, and will be fixed to use xmalloc or similar.
|
Mon 26 Mar 2012 11:20:12 AM UTC, comment #3:
> We never check the return value of printf, nor will we.
I find this habit questionable. I would prefer a more complete error detection and corresponding exception handling.
How do you think about a topic like "How to raise warning if return value is disregarded - gcc or static code check?"?
|
Mon 26 Mar 2012 03:32:05 AM UTC, comment #2:
Hi Markus!
The usage of malloc in whois is a real bug, but the usage of printf is on purpose.
We never check the return value of printf, nor will we.
Thank you for your report.
|
Thu 22 Mar 2012 05:21:59 PM UTC, comment #1:
Please correct the subject for this bug report.
|
Thu 22 Mar 2012 05:18:09 PM UTC, original submission:
I have looked at a few source files for your current software. I have noticed that some checks for return codes are missing.
Would you like to add more error handling for return values from functions like the following?
|
(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required
escape characters.)
Attach File(s):
Comment:
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
Follow 5 latest changes.