[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freebsd-hackers
Subject:    Re: kernel assertions
From:       Michael Hancock <michaelh () cet ! co ! jp>
Date:       1996-07-30 3:59:24
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Tony Kimball wrote:

> Assertions should take different forms in order to support different
> goals.  A single form should not be overloaded to provide all facilities.
> 
> - There may be some assertions which should never be removed, because
> they provide protection against catastrophic failures.  There is no
> need for a macro in such cases.

	If ... else ...
 
> - Certainly, some assertions should only be removed when a
> high-confidence configuration is used, for which utmost performance is
> pivotal.  (Global macro candidate, first form.)

	REQUIRE1(cond, desc)

	ENSURE1(cond, desc)	(less frequently used)


> - Others may be removed unless a debug kernel is being built.  (Global
> macro candidate, second form.)

	REQUIRE2(cond, desc)

	ENSURE2(cond, desc)	(more commonly used)

> - Finally, some are of use primarily if not exclusively in active
> development.  These should be defined ad hoc appropriately to the task
> at hand, and limited in scope.

	#ifdef DDB
	...
	#endif

I'd settle for Poul's ASSERT, or an ASSERT1/ASSERT2, if people don't
like the REQUIRE and ENSURE names.

Mike Hancock

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]