From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 30 13: 9:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D829150A5 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:09:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA13502; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:09:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:09:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199909302009.NAA13502@apollo.backplane.com> To: Matthew Jacob Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ASSERT macros in the kernel.... References: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :I don't seem to see (after not looking very hard) any ASSERT macros for :the kernel in FreeBSD. It'd be pretty easy to add them, and they're :awfully useful. They're different from INVARIANT support in that they :encapsulate (and panic if the assertion is triggered) more inline types of :conditions. : :Any opinions? : :-matt I don't understand what you want to do. KASSERT() is the standard way to assert something in the kernel, but we do not want to bloat the code unnecessarily so KASSERT()s only do something if INVARIANT support has been turned on. If we need to panic on something whether or not invariant support has been turned on, we currently just use a conditional and a panic. How would ASSERT be different from KASSERT() ? -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message