From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NrEsz-0006ff-3D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:19:29 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51785 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NrEsy-0006eg-3Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:19:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1NrEsx-0001bW-EM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:19:27 -0400
Received: from mail-bw0-f218.google.com ([209.85.218.218]:45393)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1NrEsx-0001bP-4B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:19:27 -0400
Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so5111365bwz.2
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B9E7A29.1020902@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:19:21 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f43fc5581003130656j408f64bfp7fe4bf486c625624@mail.gmail.com>	<m3sk82nj16.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<f43fc5581003151023g354dc74cr989f3373f5f1de9a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5581003151023g354dc74cr989f3373f5f1de9a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>


>>> 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.

Paolo