2014-03-28 13:23 GMT-04:00 Chris Peterson <[email protected]>: > On 3/28/14, 12:25 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > >> Should we give typical code a macro that does what they want and sounds >> like what they want? Really, what typical code wants is a no-operation >> instead of undefined-behavior; now, that is exactly the same as >> MOZ_ASSERT(false, "error"). Maybe this syntax is unnecessarily annoying, >> and it would be worth adding a macro for that, i.e. similar to MOZ_CRASH >> but only affecting DEBUG builds? What would be a good name for it? Is it >> worth keeping a close analogy with the unreachable-marker macro to steer >> people away from it --- e.g. maybe MOZ_UNREACHABLE_NO_OPERATION or even >> just MOZ_UNREACHABLE? So that people couldn't miss it when they look for >> "UNREACHABLE" macros? >> > > How about replacing MOZ_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE with two new macros like: > > #define MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() \ > MOZ_ASSERT(false, "MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE") > > #define MOZ_CRASH_UNREACHABLE() \ > do { \ > MOZ_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE_MARKER(); \ > MOZ_CRASH("MOZ_CRASH_UNREACHABLE"); \ > } while (0) >
MOZ_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE_MARKER tells the compiler "feel free to arbitrarily miscompile this, and anything from that point on in this branch, as you may assume that this code is unreachable". So it doesn't really serve any purpose to add a MOZ_CRASH after a MOZ_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE_MARKER. Benoit > > chris > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
