qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Halil Pasic
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] osdep.h: Prohibit disabling assert() in supported builds
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:35:52 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0


On 09/05/2017 09:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> 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.
> 

I'm fine with this outcome: it is a minimal solution to a real problem.
My initiative was a kind of bike-shedding: any devel with enough exposure
to  qemu to matter  will learn soon enough that the assert macro is
special in this project.

Regards,
Halil

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]