Re: What policy for BUG_ON()?

[Paulo Marques <pmarques@grupopie.com>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 22:15, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>>Let me try to summarize the different options regarding BUG_ON, 
>>>concerning whether the argument to BUG_ON might contain side effects, 
>>>and whether it should be allowed in some "do this only if you _really_ 
>>>know what you are doing" situations to let BUG_ON do nothing.
>>>
>>>Options:
>>>1. BUG_ON must not be defined to do nothing
>>>1a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
>>>1b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
>>>2. BUG_ON is allowed to be defined to do nothing
>>>2a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
>>>2b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
>>
>>since you quoted me earlier my 2 cents:
>>1) I would prefer BUG_ON() arguments to not have side effects; its just 
>>cleaner that way. (similar to assert)
>>
>>2) if one wants to compiel out BUG_ON, I rather alias it to panic() than
>>to nothing.
> 
> 
> I agree completely with that.

This would mean that the condition would still have to be
tested which kind of defeats the purpose of removing the
BUG_ON in the first place, doesn't it?

-- 
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
Farmers' Almanac, 1978