From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IHnQo-0007T5-LA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:14:34 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IHnQl-0007SO-1Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:14:33 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHnQk-0007SL-SE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:14:30 -0400
Received: from user-387go2v.cable.mindspring.com ([208.120.96.95]
	helo=chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <kauer@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de>)
	id 1IHnQe-0006M7-2i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:14:24 -0400
Received: from kauer by chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de with local (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <kauer@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de>) id 1IHnQC-0001bR-Qu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:13:56 +0200
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:13:55 +0200
From: Bernhard Kauer <kauer@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Message-ID: <20070805211355.GA2888@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Why not use exit() instead of abort()?
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org


--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

There are a couple of places in qemu, where abort() is called.
The most commonly used one is perhaps cpu_abort() which is called
e.g. when a triple fault occures.

As abort() does not call any atexit() function, cleanup is not
performed. This leaves for example the terminal in a state where
the cursor is invisible.

Are there any reasons not to use exit(1) in cpu_abort()?


	Bernhard Kauer

--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="qemu_abort.diff"

Index: exec.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/qemu/qemu/exec.c,v
retrieving revision 1.103
diff -u -r1.103 exec.c
--- exec.c	1 Jul 2007 18:21:11 -0000	1.103
+++ exec.c	4 Aug 2007 13:07:52 -0000
@@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@
         fflush(logfile);
         fclose(logfile);
     }
-    abort();
+    exit(1);
 }
 
 CPUState *cpu_copy(CPUState *env)

--ibTvN161/egqYuK8--