lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations
Date
From
Riley Williams <rhw@MemAlpha.CX> said:

[...]

> >>>> +#else
> >>>> +#define kassert(cond) (void) abs(cond)
> >>>> +#define kassertoops(cond) (void) abs(cond)
> >>>> +#endif

> >>> Any code depending on assert evaluating the condition is broken
> >>> IMHO.

It _is_ broken. See the page for assert(3). People _will_ go and delete
kassert(9) calls, and blow up the whole thing.

> >> IMHO also, but the general concensus appears to be in favour
> >> of it. [...]

Don't let "consensus" make you stray from the right path.
--
Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.099 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site