I get your point of view. However, I assume that someone would like to know what's broken instead of what would be the case if the message would have not been displayed. If my system stops with a kernel panic and tells me "Pointer is valid" I would be like -> oO.
As I can see inside eCos source, I'm not the only one understanding those assertion messages this way, some examples: CYG_ASSERT( freeret , "Couldn't free!" ); CYG_ASSERT( interr == 0, "internal lock failed!" ); CYG_ASSERT( usertmp->next != NULL, "Couldn't find message queue user" ); CYG_ASSERT( stacksize >= PTHREAD_STACK_MIN, "Inadequate stack size supplied"); CYG_ASSERT( ticks != 0, "Zero tick count"); To sum it up: - Some eCos developers use assertion messages to say what failed - Some eCos developers use assertion messages to say what would have passed This inconsistency confuses people like me, new to eCos and debugging something which I don't fully understand yet. Any further comments/opinions? - Daniel -- View this message in context: http://sourceware-org.1504.n7.nabble.com/Typo-in-assert-error-message-causing-confusion-tp245807p245957.html Sent from the Sourceware - ecos-discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
