Check for CloseHandle failures even when not debugging

base/memory/shared_memory_win.cc

Index: base/memory/shared_memory_win.cc
diff --git a/base/memory/shared_memory_win.cc b/base/memory/shared_memory_win.cc
index 5f706fe648598642584903f39a5aa40786acc88d..569d5cdc8dd13fcb18f5c9fca76fba118eb161d9 100644
--- a/base/memory/shared_memory_win.cc
+++ b/base/memory/shared_memory_win.cc
@@ -85,7 +85,8 @@ SharedMemoryHandle SharedMemory::NULLHandle() {
 // static
 void SharedMemory::CloseHandle(const SharedMemoryHandle& handle) {
   DCHECK(handle != NULL);
-  ::CloseHandle(handle);
+  const BOOL result = ::CloseHandle(handle);
+  DCHECK(result);

[brucedawson, 2015/09/16 00:30:52]

This would have caught 524267.

[rvargas (doing something else), 2015/09/16 02:09:12]

Use CHECK

[brucedawson, 2015/09/16 18:29:00]

The reason I used DCHECK was because of the DCHECK above. If handle is NULL (or
INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) then CloseHandle will fail and I wasn't sure I wanted that
causing customer crashes. Thoughts?

[rvargas (doing something else), 2015/09/16 18:54:38]

There's no semantic distinction between DCHECK and CHECK*, as in, if there's a
DCHECK somewhere it should mean that the condition should never happen so it
should be OK to replace it with a CHECK (with the only downside of increasing
the binary size). In other words, line 87 states that it is a bug to reach this
method with a uninitialized handle.

[*] I'm of course ignoring security implications.

 }
 
 // static