Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes:
> Sam Steingold <s...@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> What do the others think? Should we possibly extend stdlib.in.h so that
>>>> abort() becomes a macro that produces a detailed error message, similar to
>>>> what assert() does?
>>>
>>> Just changing abort() to assert(0) would improve the diagnostics
>>> significantly.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>> Actually,
>>
>> assert(foo())
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> if (!foo()) assert(0)
>>
>> wil probably produce an even better error message.
>
> Unless you build with NDEBUG, in which case the entire assert(foo()) is
> a no-op...
Of course there are many alternatives. A few of them:
- Make sure that NDEBUG doesn't affect this file:
#undef NDEBUG
#include <assert.h>
...
assert(0);
- Belt and suspenders:
#include <assert.h>
#define NOT_REACHED() do { assert(0); abort(); } while (0)
...
NOT_REACHED();
- Hand coding:
static void
fail_hard(const char *msg)
{
fputs (msg, stderr);
abort ();
}
...
fail_hard("oops");
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
