On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:38:07AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > FWIW I think we've done fine at using assert so far. But if I
> > understand correctly, the point of this series is to stop having to
> > worry about it.
>
> I recalled that there was at least one, and "log -Sassert" piped to
> "less" that looks for "/^[ ^I]*assert\(" caught me one recent one.
>
> 08414938 ("mailinfo.c: move side-effects outside of assert", 2016-12-19)
Thanks, I forgot about that one. There's some discussion about NDEBUG in
the surrounding thread if anybody is interested:
https://public-inbox.org/git/900a55073f78a9f19daca67e468d334@3c843fe6ba8f3c586a21345a2783aa0/
(but it's long and there's really no resolution, so you may want to skip
it).
> Even though I do not personally mind
>
> assert(flags & EXPECTED_BIT);
> assert(remaining_doshes == 0);
>
> left as a reminder primarily for coders, we can do just as well do
> so with
>
> if (remaining_doshes != 0)
> BUG("the gostak did not distim all doshes???");
Yeah, agreed. The reason I do not mind the assert() form is that if you
have nothing useful to say in the BUG() sentence, it's a bit more
compact.
> So I am fine if we want to move to reduce the use of assert()s or
> get rid of them. I personally prefer (like Peff, if I am not
> mistaken) an explicit use of the usual control structure, as it is
> easy to follow.
To clarify my position, I think BUG_ON(cond, msg) from this series
provides basically no value over "if (cond) BUG(msg)". But I could see
value in "BUG_ON(cond)" that allows the compact form but doesn't respect
NDEBUG.
-Peff
