RetroSearch Browse

Tue May 3 20:58:40 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053244.html

Hi,

Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote in
news:20050503112637.648F.JCARLSON at uci.edu: 

> Offering any hook for Py_FatalError may not even be enough, as some of
> those errors are caused by insufficient memory.  What if a hook were
> available, but it couldn't be called because there wasn't enough memory?
> 
> Of course there is the option of pre-allocating a few kilobytes, then
> just before one calls the hook, freeing that memory so that the hook can
> execute (assuming the hook is small enough).  I'm not sure if this is a
> desireable general mechanic, but it may be sufficient for you.  If you
> do figure out a logging mechanism that is almost guaranteed to execute
> on FatalError, post it to sourceforge.

IMHO this should be left to hooker(apparerently not right word, but you get 
the point :) ). If he allocates more mem. or does heavy stuff, that will just 
fail. Anyway abort() is a failure too. Either abort() will end the process or 
OS will on such a critical error.

Best regards.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053244.html below:

[Python-Dev] Need to hook Py_FatalError