On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> 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...
Um, by what set of criteria is ASSERT(!buf) better than ASSERT(0)? At least the second tells the reader that you're not using ASSERT() the normal way. I agree that ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is probably the best option. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
