On 13 Jul 2024, at 2:47, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> Marvin Scholz:
>> ---
>> libavutil/avassert.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/libavutil/avassert.h b/libavutil/avassert.h
>> index 1895fb7551..cdab912fe4 100644
>> --- a/libavutil/avassert.h
>> +++ b/libavutil/avassert.h
>> @@ -75,4 +75,16 @@
>> */
>> void av_assert0_fpu(void);
>>
>> +/**
>> + * Assert this can not be reached
>> + */
>> +#if AV_HAS_BUILTIN(__builtin_unreachable)
>> +#define av_assert_unreachable() do { \
>> + av_assert2(0); \
>> + __builtin_unreachable(); \
>> +} while (0)
>> +#else
>> +#define av_assert_unreachable() av_assert2(0)
>> +#endif
>> +
>> #endif /* AVUTIL_AVASSERT_H */
>>
>> base-commit: 85706f5136cf7c88f95843b2634dd3f7d7d2cb6d
>
> You are not the first one with this idea:
> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-May/328116.html
> But Michael Niedermayer thinks that adding a new macro instead of
> directly reusing av_assert is more complicated.
>
Oh I did not notice that one, thanks…
I definitely think an av_assert_unreachable() is clearer than
av_assert0(!"reached") too, obviously, else I would not propose it.
(Somewhat proven by these two cases fixed by the patch where we use
av_assert1/2(0) variants which then result in the compiler not knowing
these are unreachable cases when the assert is not enabled.)
If this approach is rejected, I can submit a version that uses
av_assert0(!"reached“).
> - Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
