On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Giel van Schijndel <m...@mortis.eu> wrote: > I'd rather not use assert(false) as on some systems assert() is used to > produce a nice GUI message. E.g. on Windows you'll get a message like > "assertion $expression failed, abort, ignore, attach debugger?". > Deciding which of those buttons to click becomes difficult if you don't > get to see any sensible expression there. > > Perhaps as a fallback we could do something like this: >> #define ASSERT_XXX(expr, str_expr, ...) \ >> assert(!str_expr) > Which for ASSERT(a < b, ...) (sh|w)ould be equal to: >> assert(!"a < b"); > > That would be false as well but would still retain the benefit of single > evaluation.
That sounds like a good idea. >> It is misleading, though, since it can also be ASSERT_AND_RETURN or >> just RETURN, depending on how the program is compiled and how gdb >> reacts to abort signals. So I would prefer to keep the slight >> ambiguity in the name. > > Then do I read this wrong? >> Assert that returns given return value on failure in non-debug builds. In debug builds you get both an assert and a return if the condition fails. You may not always get to the return, but it is there for those cases where you ignore the abort signal. > I'd say that's always equal to ASSERT_OR_RETURN Maybe. Maybe not. But ASSERT_RETURN is what I find used elsewhere. According to google it is somewhat frequent (26k pages), while it gives me exactly 3 pages for either of ASSERT_OR_RETURN as ASSERT_AND_RETURN. - Per _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
