On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:14:15 -0400 Ganesh Ajjanagadde <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:02 AM, wm4 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:56:16 -0400 > > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> Le 2015-10-08 17:21, Hendrik Leppkes a écrit : > >> >>>> > >> >>>> pthread is a bit of a exception. All its functions can return errors, > >> >>>> but the only time they would is if you pass in an invalid argument. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> No-one checks return values of pthread_mutex_lock, for example. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> That is not true. Plenty of projects check for errors there for > >> >>> debugging. > >> >> > >> >> Indeed, see for instance > >> >> http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/SDL/src/thread/pthread/SDL_sysmutex.c (SDL > >> >> mutexes) used by avplay. SDL mutex creation and destruction forwards > >> >> the error to avplay, where it is (currently) not being checked. > >> >> > >> > > >> > The real point of course is that pthread_once just cannot fail. The > >> > spec doesn't define any error codes, and the win32 implementation > >> > doesn't ever fail, the glibc impl never does, the musl impl never > >> > does, and at that point I gave up trying to figure out which > >> > implementations I should look for. > >> > If you want to litter the codebase with dead code, well, just go ahead. > >> > >> Maybe so currently, but there is no guarantee. In fact, it seems like > >> internally, glibc itself checks the return code: > >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/482350/ > > > > That's a lot of text for something that doesn't matter, so I didn't > > read it. But they seem to be talking about C++ and UNIX signals, which > > don't matter at all in our case (or anyone who's sufficiently > > non-insane). > > I did not expect you to read it (and neither have I). I just wanted to > point out the actual patch (which is at the very bottom). There, > pthread_once is indeed checked. > > Regardless, I do not have a strong enough preference on this to oppose > the patch. If you, Hendrik, and perhaps some others don't want to > check the return value, then by all means go ahead. That patch adds an automated regression test. It's not real code. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
