[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Martin Furter <mf_at_rola.ch>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:49:30 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, 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?
> Or to the point: does everybody else have some special trick for
> getting the breakpoint at the right place with svn_error_t in gdb that
> I don't know about?

I believe Julian mentioned that you can have both:

#define SVN_ASSERT(x) assert(x)
#define SVN_ASSERT(x) if(x) return svn_error_create(...)

Wouln't that be enough?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-17 23:49:46 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.