2 ms·
Things don't actually blow up in development, for whatever it's worth. It's really very unusual to have a defect whereby an invalid message is sent to a task --
by bcantrill 2y ago
Things don't actually blow up in development, for whatever it's worth. It's really very unusual to have a defect whereby an invalid message is sent to a task -- which was part of why REPLY_FAULT was an entirely reasonable extension of the system: it doesn't come up often, but when it does, you really want to debug it.
- gjm11 2y agoAh, my apologies. I thought I remembered the Cliffle post saying that, but in fact he says it specifically about the kernel behaviour rather than about the generalization to REPLY_FAULT. I hope no one was misled.
- bcantrill 2y agoNo worries! (It would be quite reasonable to think that we hit this a lot in development; I just wanted to clarify it for anyone who came by the thread.) And it does sound pretty off the wall to anyone who might not understand the context of Hubris, but (to bring it back on topic with Unix terms), I would liken REPLY_FAULT to SIGSYS, which would be seen under similar terms (i.e., grievously incorrect application) and has the same disposition (i.e., core dump).