On 11/14/23 17:53, Ranbir Singh wrote: > Generally speaking, there now seems to be different views coming from > you and Laszlo.
Yes. > We might have to wait for some sort of agreement to be > reached. I don't insist on CpuDeadLoop() *specifically*. Only the following two generic points matter to me: (1) Stop abusing ASSERT (both because it is compiled out of RELEASE builds, and because it is conceptually unsuitable for catching data- and environment-dependent error conditions). ASSERT must only be used for stating (well, "asserting") algorithmic invariants. (2) Upon detecting an algorithmic invariant failure, call *some* API that, at the same time: (2.a) prevents execution from continuing, (2.b) *cannot* be removed from RELEASE builds, (2.c) informs all static analysis tools we use that execution cannot continue past that point. For (2), Mike seems to have an additional requirement: (2.d) make the implementation customizable by the platform, including any information shown to, or logged for, the user (or supervisor software). I have nothing against that additional requirement. My concern is that "perfect" is going to get in the way of "good enough" once again. Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#111248): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111248 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102438320/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
