This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][BZ #16549] Add sanity check for condvar alignment.
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 23:29:58 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC][BZ #16549] Add sanity check for condvar alignment.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140211124346 dot GA31165 at domone dot podge> <52FA4AC2 dot 1070400 at redhat dot com> <1397247983 dot 10643 dot 18244 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:26:23PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 17:07 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 02/11/2014 01:43 PM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > > A more conservative solution is add assert in initialization to check
> > > alignment. Following patch does that, should be same check added for
> > > mutex/semaphores?
> > I think the real issue here is our lack of error checking for the futex
> > system call. strace on the test case shows this:
> > [pid 12278] futex(0x6010cd, FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE, 1, NULL) = -1 EINVAL
> > (Invalid argument)
> I do not think this is helpful. There's lots of undefined behavior in
> the languages and in lots of other places, and there's a reason for
> that. I agree that this may seem less "forgiving" in face of programmer
> errors, but an assert or returning an error code is unlikely to be
> really a solution. A buggy program will, I guess, often also not check
> error codes. Especially for things like synchronization constructs
> where typically, there's no real recovery / alternative solution in a
> program anyway -- if you need mutual exclusion to go on, what do you do
> if you can't get it? Just stop doing anything?
Torvald, failed assert does terminate a program. Could you explain what
do you mean with error recovery?