How expensive is integer-overflow trapping in C++?

Re:How expensive is integer-overflow trapping in C++? by wahern on Thursday September 24, 2020 @05:42AM (#24576917)

I agree libraries shouldn't rely on process-global state. It's also bad library design to trigger signed overflow. In my libraries I try to handle both situations cleanly, but that's all beside the point.

There's also the problem that SIG_IGN handlers are inherited across exec. So Rust programs that exec other programs without restoring the default handler could cause problems in programs where relying on SIGPIPE is more reasonable. This is also true of posix_spawn: SIG_IGN handlers aren't implicitly reset.

Note that Rust doesn't restore any other handlers to their default disposition as far as I can tell. Do you write all your programs to reset signal disposition on startup? I'll admit I don't normally do that unless it's a daemon.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How expensive is integer-overflow trapping in C++? by Joker_vD on Thursday September 24, 2020 @05:53AM (#24576977)

If I were to write a program that relied on "writing to a file might terminate me and that's exactly what I want" behaviour, then yeah, I absolutely would include a call to "signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_DFL)" in the main().

Of course, if I were to actually write a filter-like program (a la cat, head, grep, etc.), I would rather have just checked the return values of my write()s. It's -1? Time to call exit(errno).

[ Parent | on HN ]