develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2014

Re: Is the warning fatalization mechanism in fact safe (specificalyFATAL => 'ununitialized')

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Peter Rabbitson
Date:
December 27, 2014 19:36
Subject:
Re: Is the warning fatalization mechanism in fact safe (specificalyFATAL => 'ununitialized')
Message ID:
549F0A1E.7030008@rabbit.us
On 12/27/2014 04:28 PM, Father Chrysostomos wrote:
> Peter Rabbitson wrote:
>> Over the years I have heard several off-the-record remarks that the
>> FATAL warning mechanism is in fact rather broken and can not be relied
>> upon. Problems described ranged from "both warning and exception will
>> disappear in the ether" to "will corrupt the callstack in cases of
>> DESTROY-unwind FATAL warnings".
>
> There have been several bugs in core with fatal warnings preventing
> things from happening that should have happened already, such as file-
> test operators not setting $!.  There also used to be memory leaks.  I
> think I have fixed all those.
>
> Fatal warnings can blow the top off the C stack inside a destructor.
> See bug #123398.

This is not fixed yet, correct?

>
> Apart from that, fatal warnings are no worse than errors thrown by
> tied variables, which, indeed, can cause eval{} not to catch an error,
> which can be very confusing.  See bug #105916.
>

You seem to be rather well-versed in this area of perl. It would be 
*invaluable* if you could put together a list of all RTs (fixed and 
unfixed), pertaining to FATAL warnings.

The fixed ones are actually even more interesting, because these points 
of differing behavior between different versions of the perl interpreter.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About