Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?

[Eric van Gyzen]

On 01/08/2018 10:55, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> 08.01.2018 23:13, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>>
>>> Right, which is the reason such bugs are hard to diagnose.  Optionally
>>> killing the process on close->EBADF would help find buggy code when
>>> another thread did NOT re-open the file descriptor between the two close
>>> calls.
>>
>> Wouldn't "close(f); assert(errno != EBADF);" be better?

Putting the code in one place is far better than putting it in N
places...after /finding/ those N places.  Indeed, the purpose of this
code is to help people find those places, even in their own code,
outside of base.

> Or even
> #ifdef DEBUG_CLOSE
> #define close(f)	close(f); assert(errno != EBADF);
> #endif

errno could have been EBADF before the close().  A successful close()
does not modify errno.  So, this would have be larger, making it even
more unpalatable.

> Then the people that want to go chasing these errors can,
> and the rest of us are untouched.

Every mention in this thread of killing the process has called it
optional.  Tools, not policy.

Eric