Re: xmalloc string functions

On Jan 28, 1:39 pm, Flash Gordon <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 28/01/08 04:17:



William Ahern wrote:
Yevgen Muntyan <munt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
This is very very wrong. A typical GUI application does not do a
switch like

switch (problem_to_handle)
{
...
}

to which you could add

case ALLOC_FAILED:

It's usually different, you got the main loop which
got to spin, you got those controls you got to draw,
and you got those callbacks which actually do the
job. And the callbacks do one thing at a time, they
do not handle dozens of exceptional conditions at once,
they do not handle exceptional conditions at all
in fact.

Is that why applications crash when, using a file dialog box, I
attempt to
save a file into a directory I don't have write permission to?

No idea, ask the developers of that buggy application.
Failed fopen() is not an exceptional condition. Failed
malloc() is. Or we are using different vocabularies.

The point is that they both require similar recovery strategies.


The point is that they don't. If fopen() fails, there is nothing
to recover from. Though if all your application does is fopen(),
then you can safely abort() when fopen() fails.


To my mind, there's no difference in effort required to handle a NULL
return
from fopen(), than a NULL return from malloc(). Maybe more typing.

Then you are just really good. Because it's enormously more
typing.

Not necessarily.

So, you work with a list, and you append an element to it.
Now you do list = g_list_append(list, something); with malloc
error handling you'll have to test whether list_append()
succeeded. Not much more typing, no. A little bit more, huh?
C++ exceptions would be appropriate here, but manual error
checking in C code *is* much much more typing.


And more than that, it's more design questions too:
"what do I do in this situation,

That is part of the normal design process.

which I can't even possibly
test?"

I can test it relatively easily. For example, I can use a malloc wrapper
which allows me to force a return of a null pointer when I want during
testing. Or I can use the debugger to put a breakpoint in and change the
pointer value to null at the point I want to trigger the failure.

There are about five bazillion allocations, debugger won't do. Random
malloc() failures will do as a nice stress test, yes. But you still
won't be able to test it properly. At least not that piece of code
where it will segfault when user runs it (here I assume that user
will be able to see it, perhaps on windows). A better thing to do
is to test malloc() failure in one place, and possibly do what you
can do there, and abort.


All this apart from real problems you have to solve.

Yes, this is called software design, a task that people writing software
should perform.

Yes, *real*. No, g_malloc() aborting an application is not
a real problem. Not for a regular desktop application.

You have just had pointed out to you a time when it has been a problem
for a user.

Yeah, mozilla leaking too much. Or evolution leaking too much (?).
It would be nice to see something more substantial than "I know
for a fact" (debugged it, looked at the core file?). And would
be nice to hear about gedit or gnumeric crashing because of malloc()
failure.

I've previously pointed out times when applications have
given me a chance to recover the situation and it has avoided me loosing
a lot of work.

Avoiding losing your work in an emergency condition is just
a different story, say you can have your application lost its
terminal or X connection, in those cases you can possibly do
something to save user's work. And that's something you can
(try to) do from inside g_malloc() when malloc() fails. It's
not necessary to write a g_list_append() which can fail for
that.


This is
just a resource acquisition issue, and even if you had infinite memory
it's
a pattern you still have to deal with.

Except you don't open files twenty times in a row in every function
in your application. Memory is quite a different kind of resource.
Different in how you use it, you know.

I'm sure that William does know.



As to main loops, I'm very familiar with these. I write event based
async-io
network software, using an event dispatcher exactly like a GUI
application
might. I create and use more callback interfaces than I probably should.
When I accept a connection, I might--though, try not to--do dozens of
allocations. I try to write my code so any allocation failure is handled
gracefully. I don't need a gigantic switch statement, or special language
constructs. One designs the code to deal with such a circumstances as a
matter of course. You minimize dependencies, isolate access to shared
data,
postpone commiting to a particular state wrt to that context until you've
acquired a minimal set of resources, etc. Any non-trivial application
usually has multiple contexts within which such intermediate failures
can be
contained, with practical benefit.

Granted, I've not done much work with X11 applications, or GUI
applications
in general. But, I fail to understand how a caveat wrt to X11
justifies--absent other reasons--exiting when a string cannot be
allocated.

So you click Save button then click Close. The application failed to
process Save click because it failed to allocate memory for the event
structure to put into the event queue, but then it successfully handled
Close because at the same time yet another document was closed and
some memory returned to the malloc pool.

Do you have reason to believe that the X server is that brain dead?

Yes I actually do (try xorg sources). But it's not quite relevant,
since I wasn't talking about X server. Though if X server dies then
Xlib will kill the application too.

It
is an easy problem to handle by allocating the space in advance so that
when you get the event you *already* have the space to store it.

So, you got an event, you need to put it into the event queue.
Either you allocate memory for that (and it fails), or you
preallocate memory, it is not enough, and you try to allocate
again (and it fails). What can you do apart from some emergency
action (saving important data or something) and exit? How
do you "recover"?


You may not just lose events
like that. *Everything* must be done in order, or the application is
doomed, and the best it can do is to try to exit as nicely as it can
(like save data or whatever). It can't just pretend nothing happened.

William has suggested *not* pretending nothing happened.


Right, he didn't suggest anything.



And yet out of all of
them people will argue memory allocation alone can be completely
ignored,
simply because it's too burdensome.
<snip>
Of course I am talking about "small" allocations here, not
about stuff like allocating memory to load an image file (for
those g_malloc() is simply not used).

There's absolutely no qualitative difference between small and large
allocations without reference to other circumstances (number of
allocations,
etc). If I have 4GB of memory, what does it matter that a 10MB
allocation is
checked but not a 12B allocation? When the application approaches the
limit
its not likely that one will be more susceptible to failure than the
other.
The choice is then arbitrary and almost absurd. Better, for
consistency, to
not bother at all.

All allocations are checked. It's what you do when they fail is
different. If malloc(12) failed, then you are screwed because
all your code wants memory.

Not necessarily. For example, if you have done your job correctly the
*recovery* code already has the memory it needs allocated, so that can
run successfully.

Recovery code will be able to run successfully, so what?
The rest of the code still wants memory.


No memory => application isn't working.

Only if you don't design a suitable recovery process.

Again, no recovery process will be able to make your main loop
spin happily again. The recovery process can't get memory from
nowhere (unless by recovery you mean killing parts of application,
in which case it again doesn't make sense to proceed in normal way).


So you just don't try to handle (that is do something and not exit
the application) possible malloc() failure when you are concatenating
two strings to make up a string to display. Absurd, fine, I'll be
delighted to see an application which handles malloc() failure
when it draws a menu label (it *is* possible, it just doesn't
make sense).

I've had windows programs pop up message boxes telling me that they did
not have enough memory to open the window I asked them to open. It is
possibly, it just requires designing the software to handle the problem.

Perhaps. Except it's not "just". Again, I'll be delighted to see an
application which handles malloc() failure when it draws a menu label.
Preferably its code, to learn from. Oh, and see the code which works
with list allocated on heap, which handles every possible failure of
list_append() (no exceptions and alike please, don't we agree that
all we need is 'if (failed()) recover()'?).

Yevgen
.