On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 11:04:56AM +0200, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:34 AM Kristoffer Haugsbakk
> <kristofferhaugsbakk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025, at 10:31, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> > > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > >> Sometimes code wants to die in a situation where it already has written
> > >> an error message. To use the same error code as `die()` we have to open
> > >> code the code with a call to `exit(128)` in such cases, which is easy to
> > >
> > > Nit: This reads a little weird.
> >
> > Maybe s/to open code the code/to open-code the code/
>
> Ah, that makes so much difference.
That reads better, but I guess we can improve it even further. How about
this instead:
To retain the same error code as `die()` we have to use `exit(128)`,
which is easy to get wrong and leaves magical numbers all over our
codebase.
Patrick
