Re: You don't check for malloc failure

Philipp Schafft <[email protected]> Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:08:44 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.audio.icecast.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

reflum,

On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 09:05 +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> You don't check for malloc failure.  I've made a patch that is possibly 
> wrong but it saves the program from SIGSEGV and replaces it with SIGABRT.
> 
> -peter
> 

Thanks for searching and finding those locations. :)

But I have a question:
Not all of them (only had a brief look at the patch) look to be in a
'safe' startup/shutdown state but code wich is run within the normal
operation. Wouldn't it be better to handle those cases in a diffrent way
because abort() will kill the process? Currently if it derefences NULL
the kernel will kill the process (very likely). This patch would improve
the situation because the behavor will be more defined wich is a big pro
already.

-- 
Philipp.
 (Rah of PH2)

_______________________________________________
Icecast-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast-dev

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 482 B)