lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: What policy for BUG_ON()?
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 22:15, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > Let me try to summarize the different options regarding BUG_ON,
    > concerning whether the argument to BUG_ON might contain side effects,
    > and whether it should be allowed in some "do this only if you _really_
    > know what you are doing" situations to let BUG_ON do nothing.
    >
    > Options:
    > 1. BUG_ON must not be defined to do nothing
    > 1a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
    > 1b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
    > 2. BUG_ON is allowed to be defined to do nothing
    > 2a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
    > 2b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON

    since you quoted me earlier my 2 cents:
    1) I would prefer BUG_ON() arguments to not have side effects; its just
    cleaner that way. (similar to assert)

    2) if one wants to compiel out BUG_ON, I rather alias it to panic() than
    to nothing.

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.020 / U:0.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site