On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 03:00:29PM -0800, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On Die, 2009-11-03 at 14:44 -0800, 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; > [...] > > 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 > > The other interpretation is that one wants to catch bugs in the > development/testing phase (otherwise the assert() doesn't make that much > sense) and for a release, one adds "-DNDEBUG" to the CPPFLAGS so that > the assignment just papers over a bug and adds (false?) robustness.
I wish that I could say I've never seen an error like "buffer has wrong value, should be 'info->buffer' at this point" corrected in exactly this way :( -- David N. Lombard, Intel, Irvine, CA I do not speak for Intel Corporation; all comments are strictly my own. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
