Most Desirable Way To Handle Function Error Messages? - c

Question

Let's say I have a function to perform a small and particular task that has a fairly good possibility of failure. What is the best way to handle something going wrong? (Assuming I know what the problem is).
For example lets say I have a function that reads a two byte string and returns it:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *bar(void)
{
char *foo = malloc(3);
scanf("%2s", foo);
return foo;
}
int main(void)
{
char *foo = bar();
puts(foo);
free(foo);
return 0;
}
The above example has absolutely no error handling whatsoever. There are two ways that I would implement some sort of error handling, but I'm not sure which would be more preferred or considered best practice.
Method 1 (print error message To stderr from within the function):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *bar(void)
{
char *foo;
if(!(foo = malloc(3)))
{
fputs("\nError! Memory allocation failed.", stderr);
return 0x00;
}
scanf("%2s", foo);
return foo;
}
int main(void)
{
char *foo;
if(!(foo = bar())) return 1;
puts(foo);
free(foo);
return 0;
}
Method 2 (print error message to stderr from the calling function):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *bar(void)
{
char *foo;
if(!(foo = malloc(3))) return 0x00;
scanf("%2s", foo);
return foo;
}
int main(void)
{
char *foo;
if(!(foo = bar()))
{
fputs("\nError! Memory allocation failed.", stderr);
return 1;
}
puts(foo);
free(foo);
return 0;
}
I'm almost thinking that method two would be the best way to go because that way I could get more specific with my error messages depending on what I'm calling that function for at the time.
What I worry about with method two is the fact that I lose the ability to print what specifically went wrong in the function if it has more than one potential point of failure.
Pseudo Code:
IF FAILUREA
PRINT "FAILUREA OCCURED"
RETURN
IF FAILUREB
PRINT "FAILUREB OCCURED"
RETURN
This wouldn't be much of a problem if the function I was calling was an int because then I could just return a different integer value based on what went wrong. But in the case of a char* I typically try to return NULL on failure (so both FAILUREA and FAILUREB would be returning NULL); there would be no way to know what caused the function to fail.
So my question is what is best practice when it comes to handling error messages?

Answer 1

Allowing the caller to handle error reporting is better because:
if the function is forming part of a library stderr may not be available and an alternative reporting mechanism is required.
the calling code may have an alternative action that can be taken and may not deem the failure of function bar() as an actual failure and have no need to report it.
If a function has multiple possible failure reasons then a possibility is to pass an argument to the function that is updated in the event of failure. The calling function can then choose an appropriate action depending on the actual failure reason. For example:
enum Status
{
STATUS_OK,
STATUS_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_FAILURE,
STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED
};
enum Status status;
char* foo = bar(&status);
if (!foo)
{
if (STATUS_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_FAILURE == status)
{
/* report failure. */
}
else if (STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED == status)
{
/* try somewhere else */
}
}

Answer 2

If you can do anything about a failure and if you are going to, then you do it.
Otherwise, you may implement a generic failure function, call it in case of an error and call it a day:
void error(const char* format, ...)
{
va_list vl;
va_start(vl, format);
vfprintf(stderr, format, vl);
va_end(vl);
exit(-1);
}
You can optionally wrap it in a macro supplying it with the line# and file name:
#define ERROR(fmt, ...) \
error("file:'%s',line:%d " fmt, __FILE__, __LINE__, __VA_ARGS__)
This will make errors in the console very easy to figure out because the error messages tell precisely the file and the line in it where the error has occurred.
Typical usage, nothing fancy:
char *bar(void)
{
char *foo;
if ((foo=malloc(3)) == NULL)
ERROR("malloc() failed!\n");
if (scanf("%2s", foo) != 1)
ERROR("scanf() failed!\n");
return foo;
}
You may use longjmp() in place of exit(-1) to immediately return to the caller (=the one that did the respective setjmp()) if you want to actually do something upon the error, maybe close all files open for writing, so the buffered data isn't lost.
If you're writing a simple compiler, for example, this kind of error() is more than enough for most errors internal to the compiler and for problems in the source code being compiled (e.g. a missing colon/paren or something else that makes the code not compilable).
If you cannot or do not want to do any of that, you need to carefully write the code, do proper clean ups and return different error codes to communicate actionable errors to the caller.

Answer 3

You can do in this way if your function return more than 1 error case
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int bar(char **foo)
{
if(!(malloc(3))) return 1; /* return error case 1*/
scanf("%2s", *foo);
if(!(malloc(4))) return 2; /* return error case 2*/
return 0; /* no error*/
}
int catcherror(int error)
{
switch (error) {
case 1:
/*do something 1*/
case 2:
/*do something 1*/
case 3:
/*do something 1*/
case 4:
/*do something 1*/
case 5:
/*do something 1*/
default:
/*do something 1*/
}
}
int main(void)
{
char *foo;
int error
error = bar(&foo);
catcherror(error);
puts(foo);
free(foo);
return 0;
}
The catcherror() function could be very useful if your project contains many functions which return a common error cases