Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> I sympathize with the general idea, but I don't like dead code
>>> after abort(). What about cleaning that up?
>>>
>> Good idea, but it should be a separate patch. This patch is "safe",
>> whereas the cleanup patch could cause problems if it's not done
>> carefully.
>
> This patch is "safe", however I'd consider not changing
> assert(0)->abort() if there is code after the assert that looks like
> an attempt at recovering. Example:
>
> if (!p) {
> printf ("the impossible has happened!");
> assert (0);
> }
>
> return p->q;
>
> should be changed to abort, while
>
> if (!p) {
> printf ("the impossible has happened!");
> assert (0);
> return 0;
> }
>
> return p->q;
>
> should not.
Except when you find that the recovery attempt is insufficient, of
course. Requires closer inspection.
