|
From: Igmar P. <mai...@jd...> - 2003-08-05 13:45:57
|
> I think a correct behaviour would be something to ask the user if he wants > to get a core, wants to end the program, or continue with the execution > beside the printing of the errortext together with a the stack output. That changes program behaviour, that's bad. After a core the program's state is undefined, so I see no reason to ask questions. The program will core, with or without valgrind. > The way valgrind handles this situation now, seems like a not well defined > behaviour of valgrind in itself. With the above mentioned method, the user > would be sure, that this is a bug of his program and not one of > valgrind...which is really usefull, when the scenario for the Null-Pointer > Access gets much more complicated than my little example programm. For > example by passing of an NULL pointer as function parameter through some > function calls. If you than only get a core for valgrind, I don't think > every user will see the bug. I debug complicated programs, and the above is the least of your programs, especially when threads are involved. Igmar |