Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] osdep.h: Prohibit disabling assert() in supported builds

[Eric Blake]

On 08/24/2017 02:51 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 08/22/2017 06:19 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>>> OTOH I do think this is to some degree institutionalizing a bad practice
>>> (you say we do not want to do that, but IMHO refusing to build with
>>> NDEBUG makes only sense if we want to alter the semantic of assert so
>>> that once bad becomes acceptable). I can live with that, but I'm not
>>> happy about it. Have we considered rolling our own construct which is
>>> designed to exhibit the properties we desire?
>>

>>
>> I'd prefer that if we are going to introduce our own construct that
>> always evaluates side effects, and only has a compile-time switch on
>> whether to abort() or (foolishly) plow on, that we name it something
>> without 'assert' in the name, so that reviewers don't have to be
>> confused about remembering which variant evaluates side effects.  Maybe:
>>
>> q_verify(cond)
>>

> 
> I vote for frying bigger fish.
> 
> I also vote for using standard C when standard C is servicable.

So if it were up to me alone, the answer is:

I'm NOT going to add any new construct (whether spelled q_verify() or
otherwise), and will merely document in the commit message that we
discussed this as an alternative (so someone who wants to disable #error
can get a git history of what went into the decision).

Also, it sounds like we want to keep it #error, not #warn.

But if anyone else has strong opinions before we promote this from RFC
to actual patch, I'm still interested in your arguments.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature