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

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Martin Furter <mf_at_rola.ch> wrote:
>
>
> 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:
>
> #ifdef MAINTAINER_MODE
> #define SVN_ASSERT(x) assert(x)
> #else
> #define SVN_ASSERT(x) if(x) return svn_error_create(...)
> #endif
>
> Wouln't that be enough?

So when I'm building in maintainer mode (ie, all my active dev), I can
happily write void functions with SVN_ASSERT in them, which fail to
compile without maintainer mode? No thanks.

--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