Re: [RFC] Replacement for "assert" in the libraries

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:21 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, David Glasser
>> <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Additionally, assert/abort generally gives good stack traces
>>> when run in gdb, whereas it's trickier to track down the source of our
>>> error objects.
>>
>> Hmm, nobody's really responded to this point of mine. Am I seriously
>> the only person who appreciates how assert/abort works better with gdb
>> than our errors?
>
> No. I'm completely with you here, and have already been quite vocal in the
> past in *support* of us using assert() in our libraries. I've been laying
> low on this thread for fear of repeating myself for the 100th time and
> coming across as beating up on Stefan. :-)

I still do agree with Stefan that we should make it easy for people
providing binaries of Subversion integrated into something like the
Windows Explorer to re-bind assert/abort to something more
appropriate.

--dave

-- 
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org