On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 20.10.2013 23:26, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com > > <mailto:br...@wandisco.com>> wrote: > > > > On 16.10.2013 00:32, stef...@apache.org > > <mailto:stef...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Author: stefan2 > >> Date: Tue Oct 15 22:32:44 2013 > >> New Revision: 1532572 > >> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1532572 > >> Log: > >> Add support for read-only access to svn_config_t. In read-only > mode, > >> concurrent multi-threaded access to the same config data structure > is > >> safe. > > > >> + /* Ignore write attempts to r/o configurations. > >> + * > >> + * Since we should never try to modify r/o data, trigger an > assertion > >> + * in debug mode. > >> + */ > >> + assert(!cfg->read_only); > >> + if (cfg->read_only) > >> + return; > >> + > >> remove_expansions(cfg); > > > > Please don't use assert like this. You're assuming that what > > people like to call "release" builds are always compiled with > > -DNDEBUG. I've always found that assumption to be naïve at best. > > > > Instead, make the code depend on whether we're in maintainer mode > > or not; the result will be much less ambiguous. > > > > > > From what I can see, there is no macro to test for > > (SVN_DEBUG being more or less equivalent to DEBUG). > > > > Should we introduce SVN_MAINTAINER_MODE? > > I'd vote for > > #ifdef SVN_DEBUG > SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(!cfg->read_only) > #endif > > It looks like the same as "#ifndef NDEBUG", but the important difference > is that we control it independently of NDEBUG, and more importantly, we > already use it for these kinds of checks. > Committed as r1534110. -- Stefan^2.
