23.11.2021 00:17:30 Michael Brown <mc...@ipxe.org>:
> On 22/11/2021 16:42, Michael D Kinney wrote:
>> You are also modifying the DebugLib in the paths where ASSERT() macros
>> are disabled. When they are disabled, we want all code/data associated
>> with ASSERT() to be removed by the optimizing compiler/linker. The source
>> code change appears to force a reference to a variable/expression. Does
>> this have any size impact to any of the toolchains when ASSERT() is
>> disabled? Can you provide the size comparison before and after this
>> change?
>
> I would very strongly recommend having the non-debug version of the macro use
> something like:
>
> #define ASSERT(Expression) do { \
> if (FALSE) { \
> (VOID) (Expression); \
> } \
> } while (FALSE)
>
> Without the "if (FALSE)", you will find that an expression that may have
> side-effects (e.g. by calling an external function) will result in executable
> code being generated.
In theory +1, but don't some compilers generate "unreachable code" warnings for
this? I unfortunately cannot check them all right now. Maybe guards
push/pop'ing the warning for that need to be defined, that are only allowed to
be used with explicit documentation why they are necessary?
Best regards,
Marvin
>
> Michael
>
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#83928): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/83928
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/87172427/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
