[OT] OT: Null checks.

[Walter Bright]

On 5/6/2025 1:53 AM, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> This is why its so important to switch over to calling the global functions like 
> assert handler does.

You cannot know if the global function is corrupted or not at that stage.

A bad actor can also hijack that global function to facilitate his nefarious 
schemes.

> People can configure it to do whatever they want, we don't have to have a 
> default that is anything but instant crash.

It's not an instant crash. It generates an invalid instruction fault, which then 
goes to a handler for it, and the default behavior of that handler is to 
terminate the process.

I can tell I'm the oldest person here. I programmed for many years on a machine 
that had no concept of a fault. When your program crashed, it didn't stop. It 
kept running. It would execute data as instructions. Invalid opcodes would 
execute random snippets of microcode. It would run wild. Usually the only way to 
get control back is to do a cold boot. Now *that* is a crash.

Having the program stop when it enters an invalid state is a good thing, not a 
bad thing.

If you want to keep a program running on your customer's machine after it 
crashes, that is entirely up to you. But I cannot recommend it.