From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JAqab-00055n-4A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:44:13 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JAqaZ-00051t-4w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:44:12 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAqaZ-00051f-0w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:44:11 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1JAqaY-0003Pu-Gt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:44:10 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fix possible NULL pointer use in hw/ptimer.c
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:44:05 +0000
References: <477C489C.1000208@earthlink.net>
	<200801031402.57809.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<99DF1970-75E9-4D9D-A6D3-C0F71B2CC6C5@jump-ing.de>
In-Reply-To: <99DF1970-75E9-4D9D-A6D3-C0F71B2CC6C5@jump-ing.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200801041744.05953.paul@codesourcery.com>
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
Cc: Markus Hitter <mah@jump-ing.de>, Robert Reif <reif@earthlink.net>

On Friday 04 January 2008, Markus Hitter wrote:
> Am 03.01.2008 um 15:02 schrieb Paul Brook:
> > Having to check every return value is extremely tedious and (as
> > you've proved) easy to miss.
>
> Checking every return value is a measure for programming reliable code.

Never failing is even more reliable.

> > If the allocation fails we don't have any viable alternatives, so
> > we may as well stop right there.
>
> Stop != segfault? 

Yes.

> What about a meaningful exit message? 

"Out of memory" is a fairly comprehensive description of the problem.
In fact I'd say it's much more informative than "<random widget the user 
doesn't know or care about> failed to initialize".

Paul