At 12:46 +0000 on 09 Jan (1420804005), Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 09/01/15 12:10, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 09.01.15 at 12:45, <t...@xen.org> wrote: > >> At 11:24 +0000 on 09 Jan (1420799087), Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>>> On 09.01.15 at 12:18, <t...@xen.org> wrote: > >>>>>> + default: > >>>>>> + xfree(buf); > >>>>>> + ASSERT(!buf); > >>>> looks dodgy... > >>> In which way? The "default" is supposed to be unreachable, and sits > >>> in the else branch to an if(!buf), i.e. in a release build we'll correctly > >>> free the buffer, while in a debug build the ASSERT() will trigger. > >> Oh I see. Can you please use ASSERT(0) for that? > > I sincerely dislike ASSERT(0), but if that's the only way to get > > the patch accepted... > > > > Jan > > > > Perhaps introducing ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() as an alternative which is more > obvious in nature than both ASSERT(!buf) and ASSERT(0) ?
Fine by me! Tim. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
