Re: [webkit-dev] ASSERT vs. RELEASE_ASSERT

2024-04-01 Thread Patrick Griffis via webkit-dev 
On 2024-04-01 16:18, Michael Catanzaro via webkit-dev wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just brainstorming, but I generally think it's worth enabling way more 
> assertions in production builds to the extent we can do so without 
> unacceptable performance impact. My ideal would be to rename ASSERT() to 
> SLOW_ASSERT() and then rename RELEASE_ASSERT() to ASSERT(), to make release 
> asserts the "default" type of assert. But I'm not ambitious enough to attempt 
> that. Notably, this would in many cases downgrade the severity of security 
> bugs, since hitting a RELEASE_ASSERT() is at worst a denial of service issue. 
> Curious what other WebKit developers think about this.
> 
> Michael

I'm not suggesting this has the same result as what you propose but I
think it's worth mentioning the CMake build supports `-DENABLE_ASSERTS`
on Release builds now and this was always possible on macOS.
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

[webkit-dev] ASSERT vs. RELEASE_ASSERT

2024-04-01 Thread Michael Catanzaro via webkit-dev 

Hi,

Just brainstorming, but I generally think it's worth enabling way more 
assertions in production builds to the extent we can do so without 
unacceptable performance impact. My ideal would be to rename ASSERT() 
to SLOW_ASSERT() and then rename RELEASE_ASSERT() to ASSERT(), to make 
release asserts the "default" type of assert. But I'm not ambitious 
enough to attempt that. Notably, this would in many cases downgrade the 
severity of security bugs, since hitting a RELEASE_ASSERT() is at worst 
a denial of service issue. Curious what other WebKit developers think 
about this.


Michael


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev