This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: verbose terminate() on by default
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 01:52:58AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Phil Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | Replacing it with write() would be a bad step, I think. Now we have
> | multiple system calls, instead of a single one done after formatting.
> I disagree that this will be a bad steo for the reasons you gave.
> (1) How many system calls are there?
3 instead of 1
> (2) We're not on the critical path.
I agree. Daniel pointed out that we're terminating, after all.
My efficiency argument is withdrawn.
> | +#define errwrite(s) write(2,s,strlen(s))
> Is there any reason why this isn't an inline function?
I've actually replaced this with the fragment in pure.cc, which handles
the case where unistd.h is not necessary. I intend to match whatever is
used in pure.cc, for consistency. (Changing this /and/ pure.cc to use
inlines is certainly possible, but for a different patch.)
> If we're going to be verbose, then please let's be explanatory. Also,
> it was agreed at some point that "`...'" is bad quoting.
I just maintained the quoting that was there. The `foo' style always
bothered me, so if it's been agreed that `foo' is bad, I'll gladly get
rid of it.
I'll be stepping out for some hours, but will provide a new patch when
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002