From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 27 03:29:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C9A16A4CE; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:29:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pinky.otenet.gr (pinky.otenet.gr [195.170.0.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C8C43D39; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:29:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-a007.otenet.gr [212.205.215.7]) i6R3TUmc022185; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:29:31 +0300 Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6R3THEq024997; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:29:17 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i6R3THmQ024996; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:29:17 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:29:17 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Sergey Babkin Message-ID: <20040727032917.GA24942@gothmog.gr> References: <20040718184008.GC57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20040719075952.GG57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20040719.081356.51946167.imp@bsdimp.com> <200407191855.19885.max@love2party.net> <4105987E.5FC50517@bellatlantic.net> <20040727032253.GA24778@gothmog.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4105987E.5FC50517@bellatlantic.net> cc: Max Laier cc: pjd@freebsd.org cc: zeratul2@wanadoo.es cc: nsouch@free.fr cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some PRs X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:29:41 -0000 On 2004-07-26 19:49, Sergey Babkin wrote: > Max Laier wrote: > > The question to me is, do we really want to support (read fertilize) > > such a stupid thing? Given the chance that once we do support it > > people will use it. In my opinion it is bad to integrate something > > into base that we agree is nothing one should ever have created (at > > least that's my reading of the thread so far). I see no user-pessure > > for this. > > I'm about a week behind :-) but here are my 2 cents: it's a VERY > useful device for testing. Not checking the error code of write(), > printf() and such is a typical bug, so making it easy to detect by > switching the output to /dev/full (or creating a symlink to it) is a > very good idea. Like this: > > yourprogram >/dev/full \ > && echo "The program does not check for success of write()" If a program doesn't check the return code of write() but merrily goes on doing other stuff or even terminates with a zero return value, how will the redirection affect its operation? I think it won't, as shown in the test below (run on a Linux machine): : $ ls -ld /dev/full : crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 7 Jun 14 00:24 /dev/full : $ cat -n lala.c : 1 #include : 2 #include : 3 #include : 4 : 5 int : 6 main(void) : 7 { : 8 char buf[] = "hello world\n"; : 9 size_t len; : 10 : 11 len = strlen(buf); : 12 write(1, buf, len); : 13 return 0; : 14 } : $ cc -O -W -Wall -o lala lala.c : $ ./lala : hello world : $ ./lala >/dev/full : $ echo $? : 0 : $ The fact that /dev/full was used as the output device didn't reveal the potential write() problem. I must have misunderstood something. How do you mean that we could use /dev/full for testing?