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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans