On 2/21/23 18:06, Thomas Huth wrote:
int postcopy_wake_shared(struct PostCopyFD *pcfd,
uint64_t client_addr,
RAMBlock *rb)
{
- assert(0);
- return -1;
+ g_assert_not_reached();
}
#endif
If we ever reconsider to allow compiling with G_DISABLE_ASSERT again,
... and we shouldn't [1] ...
this will fail to compile since the return is missing now, so this is kind of
ugly ... would it make sense to replace this with g_assert_true(0) instead? Or
use abort() directly?
With g_assert_true(0), definitely not.
That is a testing-only item which can be disabled at runtime.
With abort(), no, since g_assert_not_reached() prints file:line.
Indeed, I was suggesting the opposite -- to replace abort() without error_report() with
g_assert_not_reached().
r~
[1] Allowing G_DISABLE_ASSERT and/or NDEBUG would only require that we invent
qemu-specific replacements with either (1) do exactly the same thing or, (2) interact with
__builtin_unreachable() or __builtin_trap(), so that we tell the compiler exactly what's
going on with the expressions and flow control.
