🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5vE-N3F6nTB@site71.ping.at> wsog@site71.ping.at (Walter Sommergruber) writes:

> > A core dump in that context is neither better nor worse than any
> > other kind of run-time trap that prevents the program from yielding a
> > result. --

> Do you really think so ? What will your customers say about a program that
> crashes with a core dump ? I think most of them prefer a program where
> they get a message "Sorry, internal error. Contact ...." or (in the case
> the error is not severe) a program that makes another try.

Every system I've ever seen provides a way to do just that,
usually by calling signal() or something like it.

> It think it's always better to think a few minutes about bad errors rather
> than hoping that it will never happen...

Absolutely.  But there are lots of ways of dealing with such things,
of which building run-time checks into every compiler is only one.

> Send a message and then shutdown the program (closing files, releasing OS- 
> resources,...). Or do you like core dumps so much ?

I don't like core dumps particularly.  Did I say I did?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com