Bugs item #1671695, was opened at 2007-03-01 07:06 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by gk4 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=103382&aid=1671695&group_id=3382
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Tools Group: Miscellaneous Status: Open Resolution: Postponed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Markus Elfring (elfring) Assigned to: mreed (mreed10) Summary: Check return codes everywhere Initial Comment: Some checks for return codes are missing. Examples: Would you like to add more error handling for return values from "write" like in the function "wlog_record_write" and from "lseek" in the function "wlog_scan_backward"? http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/lib/write_log.c?revision=1.7&view=markup ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: George Kraft IV (gk4) Date: 2008-05-20 09:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=4500 Originator: NO > How do you think about the reaction "exit(errno)" or "abort()"? Use exit(EXIT_SUCCESS), exit(EXIT_FAILURE), and exit(errno). The exit(-1) statements don't make any sense. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Markus Elfring (elfring) Date: 2007-05-21 07:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=572001 Originator: YES How do you think about the reaction "exit(errno)" or "abort()"? I suggest to encapsulate the error handling variations as aspects. Which tool do you accept to specify the corresponding pointcuts and advices? Would you like to try any static code analysis like "http://scan.coverity.com/";? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Subrata (subrata_modak) Date: 2007-05-21 05:12 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1737361 Originator: NO Hi, >>I can not offer patches until there will be consensus on proper >>reactions in the source code. You can very well send a patch which fixes all such error handling in all the testcases in the code. Let us then decide whether it can be accepted in it's original form or we need some more twiking to the Patch. I think you will do a great Job if you are submitting a Patch in the 1st Place. Regards-- Subrata ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Markus Elfring (elfring) Date: 2007-05-21 02:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=572001 Originator: YES I prefer to keep this issue open until all places in the source files will be fixed. I can not offer patches until there will be consensus on proper reactions in the source code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Subrata (subrata_modak) Date: 2007-05-21 00:12 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1737361 Originator: NO LTP will undergo a major overhaul in the coming days. We will look in to this aspect too for all the testcases. Meanwhile, we are not looking into error handling for any particular testcase alone. This will be dealt veru soon in future on the overall testcases. As mentioned in my previous comment, i would encourage you to submit a patch in this regard. Regards-- Subrata ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Markus Elfring (elfring) Date: 2007-04-27 07:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=572001 Originator: YES 1. I've got doubts about the correctness of the following source code. http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/lib/write_log.c?revision=1.9&view=markup ... offset = lseek(wfile->w_afd, 0, SEEK_CUR) - reclen; if ( offset == -1 ) { ... Should the additional subtraction only be applied in the successful case? 4. Would you like to reduce the efforts for error code checking by an exception class hierarchy? http://dietmar-kuehl.de/mirror/c++-faq/exceptions.html#faq-17.1 http://cexcept.sourceforge.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Subrata (subrata_modak) Date: 2007-04-27 05:14 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1737361 Originator: NO The same has been fixed. May be you can also submit a patch for all error handling required after analysis from your tool from http://splint.org/. Thanks-- Subrata ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Markus Elfring (elfring) Date: 2007-03-28 03:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=572001 Originator: YES Thanks for this fix. 1. Would you like to detect every error situation as early as possible? 2. I see more candidates for similar updates to avoid unchecked function calls. Example: http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/lib/tst_tmpdir.c?revision=1.11&view=markup - close() - printf() - scanf() - strdup() - unlink() 3. Would you like to improve the source code with the help of the tool "http://splint.org/";? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Subrata (subrata_modak) Date: 2007-03-27 23:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1737361 Originator: NO Added more error handling code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=103382&aid=1671695&group_id=3382 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
