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

Re: svn commit: r35023 - trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:13:19 +0200 (Jerusalem Standard Time)

Blair Zajac wrote on Sun, 4 Jan 2009 at 10:52 -0800:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, 4 Jan 2009 at 14:39 +0100:
> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:07:01AM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -180,6 +190,8 @@ path_rev_packed(svn_fs_t *fs, svn_revnum
> > > > > > fs_fs_data_t *ffd = fs->fsap_data;
> > > > > > assert(ffd->max_files_per_dir);
> > > > > > + assert(is_packed_rev(fs, rev));
> > > > > We're not using assert() anymore, but SVN_ASSERT(), assuming the
> > > > > method
> > > > > returns an svn_error_t *.
> > > > >
> > > > It returns const char *.
> > > You could probably use SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN() in this case.
> > > It was made for functions that do not return svn_error_t*.
> > >
> > > But assert()s do not get compiled into release builds anyway.
> > > It's aborts() which are really bad when used outside of the
> > > SVN_ERR_ASSERT* macros.
> > >
> >
> > If people think assert()s are bad, we can change those functions so
> > they return 'svn_error_t *' and use SVN_ERR_ASSERT().
>
> That would be the best.
>

Okay. But I'm looking at some potentially-more-harmful bugs right now,
so changing one type of assertion to another isn't my top priority at
the moment.

(That said, I did add it to my list of things to look at. I'm only
saying that presently it isn't near the top of that list.)

Daniel

> Blair
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1003633
Received on 2009-01-04 20:31:27 CET

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