On 24.08.2022 12:45, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 24.08.22 12:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.08.2022 12:22, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> Hitting an ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is always wrong, so even in production >>> builds a warning seems to be appropriate when hitting one. >> >> I disagree, for two reasons: This violates the implication of NDEBUG >> meaning ASSERT() and friends expand to no actual code. Plus if doing so > > This is something we can change IMHO. > >> for ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(), why would we not do the same for ASSERT()? > > There are multiple reasons to have ASSERT()s. Some serve as a kind of > documentation (e.g. to document that the programmer thought of a special > case not being possible), or they are meant to catch hard to diagnose > bugs rather early instead of letting them hit later in a situation where > it wouldn't be clear what caused them. Adding a WARN() for all of these > cases isn't really appropriate, especially as this might impact > performance due to added tests, which isn't the case for theoretically > unreachable code. > >> There's a reason we have ASSERT() and friends and, independently, >> WARN_ON() / BUG_ON() et al. > > We might want to introduce something like ASSERT_OR_WARN(). I'm sure > this could be useful in some cases.
I'm curious why in such cases it can't just be WARN_ON(). Jan
