Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:43:16 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha support.s src/sys/i386/i386 swtch.s src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c src/sys/sys systm.h Message-ID: <20040218093149.A19121@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20040217170647.GA95247@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <200401192127.i0JLRBL3041817@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040213035557.M24031@gamplex.bde.org> <20040215094444.F6303@gamplex.bde.org> <20040217170647.GA95247@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 09:57:41PM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote: > > Sorry my stupid, but it seems everyone seems happy if traceback() > > improvement happens. Is that really too hard to go forward? > > Alternatively, we could extend KASSERT to emit a file and line > number like assert(3) and instead of panic(). Seems very logical > to me. That feature was intentionally left out when KASSERT() was designed. For some reason, we decided to give the invoker of KASSERT() complete control over the message contents (unlike in userland where the message is the condition stingized and followed by __FILE__ and __LINE__. Presumably this was partly to permit use of existing panic messages verbatim. I'm not completely happy with the results of this at any level, especially at the source level. It requires and ugly syntax (another layer of parentheses around the message), and is harder to write and can be harder to read (writers have to think about what to put in the message; it's normal to invert the sense of the assertion and not unknown to make logic errors doing so; then readers don't see the original condition in the panic message). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040218093149.A19121>