On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 10:34 -0700, Steve deRosier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 10:19 -0700, Steve deRosier wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > Fix fallout too.
> >
> > []
> > > My only question is why bother doing a format check on something
> > > that's going to be compiled out anyway?
> >
> > To avoid introducing defects when writing new code
> > and not using the debugging code path.
> >
>
> Fair enough. And I totally agree with the defensive programming here
> in that case and feel it's worth the tradeoff (if indeed there really
> is any cost, I'm unsure what gcc actually does in this instance).
>
> For sake of discussion though - shouldn't anything not using the debug
> code path in this case always be of the form that compiles out? ie
> would be empty functions intended here just to make compilation work
> and the code that depends on it simpler? Thus, there really should
> never be a risk of introducing said defects. If any "real" code were
> put in that else clause, that'd be a big red-flag in the review of
> said hypothetical patch.
Generically, all debugging forms should strive to avoid side-effects.
For instance, look at no_printk/pr_debug in the #ifndef DEBUG paths.
It uses if (0) to avoid compilation of arguments that might be
function calls or volatile accesses and so might have side-effects
altogether.
include/linux/printk.h-/*
include/linux/printk.h- * Dummy printk for disabled debugging statements to use
whilst maintaining
include/linux/printk.h- * gcc's format checking.
include/linux/printk.h- */
include/linux/printk.h:#define no_printk(fmt, ...)
\
include/linux/printk.h-({
\
include/linux/printk.h- do { \
include/linux/printk.h- if (0) \
include/linux/printk.h- printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
include/linux/printk.h- } while (0); \
include/linux/printk.h- 0; \
include/linux/printk.h-})
i
