2014-03-28 16:48 GMT-04:00 L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org>: > On Friday 2014-03-28 13:41 -0700, Jeff Gilbert wrote: > > My vote is for MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE and MOZ_OPTIMIZE_FOR_UNREACHABLE. > > > > It's really handy to have something like MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE, instead > of having a bunch of MOZ_ASSERT(false, "Unreachable.") lines. > > > > Consider MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE being the same as > MOZ_OPTIMIZE_FOR_UNREACHABLE in non-DEBUG builds. > > I agree on the first (adding a MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE), but I don't > think MOZ_OPTIMIZE_FOR_UNREACHABLE sounds dangerous enough -- the > name should make it clear that it's dangerous for the code to be > reachable (i.e., the compiler can produce undefined behavior). > MOZ_DANGEROUSLY_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE is one idea I've thought of for > that, though it's a bit of a mouthful. >
I too agree on MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE, and on the need to make the new name of MOZ_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE sound really scary. I don't mind if the new name of MOZ_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE is really long, as it should rarely be used. If SpiderMonkey gurus find that they need it often, they can always alias it in some local header. I think that _ASSUME_ is too hard to understand, probably because this doesn't explicitly say what would happen if the assumption were violated. One has to understand that this is introducing a *compiler* assumption to understand that violating it would be Undefined Behavior. How about.... MOZ_ALLOW_COMPILER_TO_GO_CRAZY ;-) This is technically correct, and explicit! Benoit > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
