From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41629)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1RJpTh-0004O3-T5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:40:22 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1RJpTg-0006hv-OY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:40:21 -0400
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EAADAEA.5070608@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:40:10 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1319487523-19978-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
	<20111026125431.GC27267@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain>
	<m3obx1y36x.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<CAJSP0QVpEpB-_hAWJr1mNKzoEjGGPwVBkMu+S-BcOFe_fK7Nhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<m34nytsd99.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<CAJSP0QUX0TtQtrwsotPuGtMXnq=pH8srk-Bbyn6B2gu2YMt9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<m3y5w5nzma.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<CAJSP0QWd-aT6Hyj=dut+a_Va75zYMORzdjGit3pzU-PFzYWD+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<m3ehxxfae3.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3ehxxfae3.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix compiler warning (always return a
	value)
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>

On 10/28/2011 04:39 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >
>> >  I'm tempted to continue the thread but at the end of the day we just
>> >  need to make the function compile with -NDEBUG.  Using abort(3) or
> Do we?
>
> Anyone crazy^Wadventurous enough to compile with -DNDEBUG should be
> capable of configure --disable-werror.

Also, I'm not really sure of the benefit of NDEBUG.  For something like 
QEMU, hardware emulation is not going to be your bottleneck and for KVM 
you badly want those asserts to protect against guest-to-host 
escalation.  If you have a really expensive check, you should wrap it 
inside #ifdef DEBUG.

And if you use NDEBUG because you want to live on the edge and ignore 
possible problems, remember there's an "assert (p != NULL)" hidden 
before any pointer dereference, and you cannot disable that with NDEBUG. :)

Paolo