From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NrF1m-0006o8-B3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:28:34 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50459 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NrF1l-0006n8-Lf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:28:33 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1NrF1k-0002CW-Hu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:28:33 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31374)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1NrF1k-0002CR-2h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:28:32 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <f43fc5581003130656j408f64bfp7fe4bf486c625624@mail.gmail.com>
	<m3sk82nj16.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<f43fc5581003151023g354dc74cr989f3373f5f1de9a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B9E7A29.1020902@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:28:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4B9E7A29.1020902@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Mon,
	15 Mar 2010 19:19:21 +0100")
Message-ID: <m33a01a183.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH,
	RFC] Replace assert(0) with abort() or  cpu_abort()
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@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.