Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 25 May 2018 13:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:      "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
To:        araujo@freebsd.org
Cc:        "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r334199 - head/usr.sbin/bhyve
Message-ID:  <201805252032.w4PKWnOF047432@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZj9h6MPYB2JP_zfZep02GK4mH8as9uaTvVDJ=5eH2UNkQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sat, May 26, 2018, 4:22 AM Rodney W. Grimes <
> freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> 
> > > On Sat, May 26, 2018, 4:09 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 25 May 2018 at 14:26, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> The fact that we don't do NDEBUG builds normally does not allow us
> > to
> > > >> >> ignore that it exists.  It's perfectly reasonable for a user to
> > build
> > > >> >> with CFLAGS+=NDEBUG.  That need to work.  If code is going to fail
> > to
> > > >> >> handle resource errors with NDEBUG set then it needs something like
> > > >> this
> > > >> >> at the top of the file:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please document it in some place!
> > > >>
> > > >> NDEBUG is documented in assert(3). The man page should have more of an
> > > >> explanation (and examples) of the possible pitfalls of assert()
> > > >> though
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > NDEBUG has been documented in the assert man page since it entered Unix
> > > > via PBW in the 7th Edition Unix from Bell Labs. It's part of the C
> > > > standard, as well as many POSIX and SVID docs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes I can read that! Now tell me, do we build FreeBSD without assert?
> > >
> > > If we do, probably we can't run it without crash!
> >
> > So that makes it perfectly fine to continue what is a well known bad
> > practice?  I do not think so.
> >
> > Many people have tried to persuade you that the *proper* way to check
> > the return from a function is with an if statement, not with an assert,
> > please try to accept that this is pretty much standard accepted portable
> > 'C' coding, and realize all those places you see assert(foo) checking
> > the return of a function are more than likely lurking bugs to be fixed.
> >
> 
> I never said that I didn't accepted that!

You flat out rejected it, more than once, and from more than one source.

> What I have been saying the issue
> is all around and we need to fix it.

You never said we need to fix any of the asserts until prehaps just now.

> Please don't twist my words!

I did not twist your words.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201805252032.w4PKWnOF047432>