Darren New wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
If it is an "unexpected error" it is difficult to be sure you've
recovered "enough" from a problem. All you can do is best effort.
True. I can usually avoid having to have a second process monitor the
first for core dumps.
Yeah, but most often having a second process monitor the first is the
safest and simplest approach for dealing with an unexpected error. It
ensures all the right resources are cleaned up and it is easier to code
things so that process death gets things back to a known good (or more
accurately: probably good) state.
And of course a safe language is, well, safer when things go
pear-shaped. At least they rarely go entirely off the deep end without
you even noticing.
Oh gods this is so not true.... In particular, "safer" languages tend to
be a PITA to deal with when it comes to correcting bugs in the
language's implementation.
--Chris
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
