On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> wrote:
> I think if we require everyone to handle every failed DCHECK, then what we
> will really do is compel people to write fewer DCHECKs, which means that we
> will lose some of the documentation benefits. That seems undesirable to me.
>
I agree. Given a choice, I would say that DCHECK should just crash
immediately on failure rather than relying on the code that follows it to
crash. That is, treat it like an assertion--if it's false, we don't know
what state the process is in, and thus don't know how to recover.
> I think there really is a balance here between adding DCHECKs for the sake
> of documentation / guidance to developers and dealing with runtime errors
> that we really need to worry about. People just have to use best judgment
> to decide when a failed DCHECK should also be handled in release builds.
>
For informative but non-fatal stuff, using the logging facility seems like a
better solution. For example, during the Mac & Linux porting efforts we've
sprinkled log messages all over, which has been very helpful.
--Amanda
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
