just make sure the logfile actually has data in, even if the log destructor isn't called. that can often be a problem, then.
for your other points, yes of course. that's why i love RAII.
have fun doing the lowlevel stuff. i remember it from long time ago :)
Global object's destructor not called when code crashes
Author
@Dave: yes it was so much Fun!! I've never felt like this before, oh wel...
To All: MERRY CHRISTMAS GUYS! have a good one here :D
To All: MERRY CHRISTMAS GUYS! have a good one here :D
When the code crashes, you can't rely on *anything* happening.
A crash could be a hardware failure. It could bluescreen the OS; it could lock the system solid. So even files which were written before the crash, aren't safe unless you fsync()'d them and got back a positive result (This assumes the machine has non-lying hardware)
A really robust application should be able to recover from any kind of shutdown, including an OS / hardware failure; this means that a program crash is relatively "clean".
If you read up on the principle "crash-only", you'll realise, that doing anything in your global destructor is essentially futile (or at best, unnecessary).
A crash-only program should not rely on a global destructor being executed, or indeed any other destructor, if the program stops executing.
"Stops executing" here, meaning that it's not running any more, as a result of a normal quit operation, program crash, OS crash, hardware failure, intercontintenal thermonuclear war etc.
A crash could be a hardware failure. It could bluescreen the OS; it could lock the system solid. So even files which were written before the crash, aren't safe unless you fsync()'d them and got back a positive result (This assumes the machine has non-lying hardware)
A really robust application should be able to recover from any kind of shutdown, including an OS / hardware failure; this means that a program crash is relatively "clean".
If you read up on the principle "crash-only", you'll realise, that doing anything in your global destructor is essentially futile (or at best, unnecessary).
A crash-only program should not rely on a global destructor being executed, or indeed any other destructor, if the program stops executing.
"Stops executing" here, meaning that it's not running any more, as a result of a normal quit operation, program crash, OS crash, hardware failure, intercontintenal thermonuclear war etc.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
