Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:14:25 +0100 | From | Paulo Marques <> | Subject | Re: What policy for BUG_ON()? |
| |
Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>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. > > > I agree completely with that.
This would mean that the condition would still have to be tested which kind of defeats the purpose of removing the BUG_ON in the first place, doesn't it?
-- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer. Farmers' Almanac, 1978 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |