pcb

Comment 6 for bug 699146

Revision history for this message
Bob Paddock (bob-paddock) wrote : Re: [Pcb-bugs] [Bug 699146] Re: Check return codes everywhere

> 3. If you wanted to look at static analysis of the code-base, we'd be happy to incorporate any fixes that discovers.

At some point I'll run Gimple's Lint over the code. Do you want a
thousand patches or one megalithic one against git head?
Maybe a sub-megalithic for example one that removes all unused
variables and functions (stuff that can never be reached in any way)?

Things that could reasonable be expected to fail, like memory
allocation, should test for error, and crash gracefully.
There should be some tangable message in a log or dialog that can be
reported to the bug tracker that aids in getting the problem fixed.
Don't be afraid to put in lots of __FILE__ and __LINE__ and where
supported __FUNCTION__. A wish request might be a tracing mechanism.

A Seg Fault with no explanation really shows our tools here in a very
poor light in commercial settings.
Boss's hear things like '#)$*#)* it crashed again' from the other side
of the cube farm if they are looking for a reason to disparage Open
Source.

--
http://blog.softwaresafety.net/
http://www.designer-iii.com/
http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/