On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:17:28 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:59:17 GMT
> Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > + BUG_ON(bind_irq_vector(irq, vector));
>
> It's not good practice to do assert(expression-with-side-effects). Because
> if someone wants to create a build which has all the assertions disabled,
> the resulting binary will not work.
>
> In the present implementation our BUG_ON(expression) will evaluate
> `expression' even if CONFIG_BUG=n. But that's totally lame and we are just
> leaving optimisation opportunities on the floor.
>
> Our objective _should_ be to make BUG_ON(expr) generate no code at all if
> CONFIG_BUG=n.
>
> So please, prefer to do
>
> if (bind_irq_vector(irq, vector))
> BUG();
>
hm, now I think about it, our present implementation seems OK. If you
have CONFIG_BUG=n then this:
BUG_ON(foo < bar);
will generate no code and this:
BUG_ON(some_function());
will still call some_function().
So I guess we're OK.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
