Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > bheap_destroy allow > > > setting the bheap_t structure to an invalid value which, in turn, allow > > > helping upper layers in catching invalid uses of the bheap after its > > > destruction. > > > > Ok, we could make bheap_destroy pop up under XENO_OPT_DEBUG. We may then > > also add assertions to the bheap functions themselves to check for > > invalid usage. > > The checkings are already there, if you do not remove > bheap_destroy. They are unconditionnal, because I find such checkings way > too important to be optimized out.
Sorry, I might be blind, but how do bheap_gethead, bheap_insert, or bheap_delete detect that heap->last or heap->sz became 0 after bheap_destroy? Given that this is code to be inlined and heavily used, we should really take care for size and efficiency on production systems, even if it's about a few bytes here. But I also agree that verbose(!) checking (XENO_ASSERT/XENO_BUGON) is very useful during development. Jan
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core