From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <6f5fd9d621754d33e66306c1373bf64b@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  9 Jun 2006 19:45:40 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] quantity vs. quality
In-Reply-To: <20060610025147.GA22339@ionkov.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 66ecab18-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i don't know if it's good code or bad code in general. i was pointing out that it is possible to
catch a call to sysfatal and do something else, since you seemed to indicate that was
not possible.

it may be a good strategy if you really feel that sysfatal needs to be caught for your 
particular application.  the advantage is that other, simplier applications need not 
be complicated by handling things like malloc failures.

- erik

On Fri Jun  9 19:46:28 CDT 2006, lucho@gmx.net wrote:
> > sure you can.  sysfatal calls _sysfatal to do the deed.  redefine that to call your
> > fancy cleanup routine and you're golden.
> 
> And you think that's an example of writing good code? I thought we are
> talking about a system with clean design that you don't need to use kludges in :)
> 
> 	Lucho