On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Gabriel Michael Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry to butt into the conversation, but I've thought before that it > would be really handy to have asserts that printed out a message rather > than just the condition that triggered them. It would be handy to be > able to say why the condition you're checking should be true, as well as > the other nice capabilities you've already mentioned, so I'm in favor of > this idea in some form.
You're not butting in at all... I sent the email to m5-dev and not to Nate directly for a reason :-). I'm fine with someone doing an extended form of assert along the lines of what you mention, which sounds similar to what Nate was proposing as well. I'd definitely want the extended features (description string, etc.) to be optional though. I think what I'm trying to do is largely orthogonal... just make it easy to take existing 'a == b' style assertions and get the output to be more informative without any extra work on the part of the assertion writer. If we had an extended form of assert then what I want to do could be built on top of that, but I don't really see any benefit in doing so. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
