David N. Lombard wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:42:48PM -0800, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >> On Втр, Ноя 03, 2009 at 04:28:09 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >>> assert (*buffer == info->buffer); >>> *buffer = info->buffer; >> "Never say never". > > Ummm, if the order was reversed, one could argue this was an attempt to catch > a > silent data corruption (SDC). A grossly horribly ineffective attempt, but an > attempt nonetheless. Hey, if you're going to claim that, may as well make the > claim on the code as presented. > > I wonder if this started out as much different code, with the order reversed, > the assignment within some hopelessly convoluted conditional making the > assert() > macro a Good Thing(TM). At least then one could claim an infinitesimal shred > of plausible deniability... :p >
At one time, at least, assert() calls could be nullified by #defining something like "NDEBUG". Maybe they were trying to take that into account somehow. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
