Re: assert, ABORT, and friends
On 6/21/06, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry" == Jerry James
<james(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Jerry> It does not preserve more data. Our code base is riddled
Jerry> with code that assumes that ABORT() and failing assert()s
Jerry> do not return. So in a double assertion failure scenario,
Jerry> what is likely to happen is that the second assert_failed()
Jerry> will return, and the code it returns to will immediately do
Jerry> something fatal based on the assumption that a return would
Jerry> not happen. So XEmacs is dead anyway, without having done
Jerry> anything extra to preserve the user's data.
I wonder if this scenario helps to account for the number of
backtraces we see with no apparent connection to what the user said he
was doing at the time?
That sounds like a good hypothesis and Jerry's work would be a great
boon if your hypothesis is true.
- Vin