Error Handling C Best Practices
Contents |
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow c exception handling best practices the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack
C Error Handling Techniques
Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of objective c error handling best practices 4.7 million programmers, just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Error handling in C code up vote 102 down vote favorite 59 What do you consider "best
Python Error Handling Best Practices
practice" when it comes to error handling errors in a consistent way in a C library. There are two ways I've been thinking of: Always return error code. A typical function would look like this: MYAPI_ERROR getObjectSize(MYAPIHandle h, int* returnedSize); The always provide an error pointer approach: int getObjectSize(MYAPIHandle h, MYAPI_ERROR* returnedError); When using the first approach it's possible to write code like this where the error handling check is directly placed ssis error handling best practices on the function call: int size; if(getObjectSize(h, &size) != MYAPI_SUCCESS) { // Error handling } Which looks better than the error handling code here. MYAPIError error; int size; size = getObjectSize(h, &error); if(error != MYAPI_SUCCESS) { // Error handling } However, I think using the return value for returning data makes the code more readable, It's obvious that something was written to the size variable in the second example. Do you have any ideas on why I should prefer any of those approaches or perhaps mix them or use something else? I'm not a fan of global error states since it tends to make multi threaded use of the library way more painful. EDIT: C++ specific ideas on this would also be interesting to hear about as long as they are not involving exceptions since it's not an option for me at the moment... c error-handling share|improve this question edited Nov 6 '13 at 19:09 ubershmekel 3,64013145 asked Dec 22 '08 at 10:46 Laserallan 6,71172956 add a comment| 17 Answers 17 active oldest votes up vote 50 down vote accepted I like the error as return-value way. If you're designing the api and you want to make use of your library as painless as possible think about these additions: store all possible error-states i
handling in C Posted on January 16, 2010 by rlc One of the things I do as a analyst-programmer is write software - that would be the "programmer" part. I usually do that in C++ but, sometimes, when the
Angularjs Error Handling Best Practices
facilities of C++ aren't available (e.g. no exception handling and no RTTI) C becomes
Javascript Error Handling Best Practices
a more obvious choice. When that happens, RTTI is not the thing I miss the most - you can get java error handling best practices around that using magic numbers if you need to. Exceptions, on the other hand, become a very painful absence when you're used to using them. Error handling is a very important part of programming: a http://stackoverflow.com/questions/385975/error-handling-in-c-code lot of things can go wrong when a program runs and most of those things need to be handled properly because the functionalities of your program depend on them. C++ uses exceptions for this purpose, so that if a call to foo fails, you don't have to handle that failure in the context of your call - especially if you wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway. http://rlc.vlinder.ca/blog/2010/01/error-handling-in-c/ Thus, the following code: foo(); bar(); will call bar only if foo didn't throw any exceptions. Presumably both do something useful and neither of them return anything useful. Now, the same thing would be true in C if we did something like this: int result = foo(); if (result == 0) result = bar(); Now, both foo and bar return a result code which, in this case, is 0 if all is well. Windows programmers will be more familiar with this: HRESULT result = foo(); if (SUCCEEDED(result)) result = bar(); which amounts to the same thing. HRESULT, after all, is a 32-bit unsigned integer of which a few bits are reserved to indicate where the error originated and the other bits indicate the error. An HRESULT value of 0 means no error, so the SUCCEEDED basically checks whether the result is 0. The trouble starts when the function returned an integer already - e.g. a getFooCount function: unsigned int foo_count(getFooCount()); foo(foo_count); In this code, foo only gets called when getFooCount returns a valid value - which is the function's post-condition, so it would have thrown an exception otherwise. There are two different ways to port this to C: unsigned int foo_count = getFooCount(); if (isValidFooCount(foo_count)&
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/302730/should-one-check-for-every-little-error-in-c company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Programmers Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered Ask Question _ Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the error handling top Should one check for every little error in C? [duplicate] up vote 53 down vote favorite 4 This question already has an answer here: What defines robust code? 12 answers As a good programmer one should write robust codes that will handle every single outcome of his program. However, almost all functions from the C library will return 0 or -1 or NULL when there's an error. It's sometimes obvious that handling best practices error checking is needed, for example when you try to open a file. But I often ignore error checking in functions such as printf or even malloc because I don't feel necessary. if(fprintf(stderr, "%s", errMsg) < 0){ perror("An error occurred while displaying the previous error."); exit(1); } Is it a good practice to just ignore certain errors, or is there a better way to handle all the errors? c error-handling share|improve this question asked Nov 16 '15 at 23:59 Derek 朕會功夫 33338 marked as duplicate by gnat, GlenH7, Dan Pichelman Nov 17 '15 at 18:32 This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question. 30 +1 because that code made me laugh out loud. –Ixrec Nov 17 '15 at 0:06 12 Depends on the robustness level that is required for the project you're working on. Systems that has a chance of receiving inputs from untrusted parties (e.g. public-facing servers), or operating in not fully trusted environments, need to be coded very cautiously, to avoid the code becoming a ticking time bomb (or the weakest link being hacked). Obviously, hobby and learning projects do not need such robustness. –rwong Nov 17 '15 at 0:32 1 Som
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:18:10 GMT by s_ac15 (squid/3.5.20)