svn commit: r334199 - head/usr.sbin/bhyve

[Marcelo Araujo]

On Sat, May 26, 2018, 4:22 AM Rodney W. Grimes <
freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:

> > On Sat, May 26, 2018, 4:09 AM Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 25 May 2018 at 14:26, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> The fact that we don't do NDEBUG builds normally does not allow us
> to
> > >> >> ignore that it exists.  It's perfectly reasonable for a user to
> build
> > >> >> with CFLAGS+=NDEBUG.  That need to work.  If code is going to fail
> to
> > >> >> handle resource errors with NDEBUG set then it needs something like
> > >> this
> > >> >> at the top of the file:
> > >> >
> > >> > Please document it in some place!
> > >>
> > >> NDEBUG is documented in assert(3). The man page should have more of an
> > >> explanation (and examples) of the possible pitfalls of assert()
> > >> though
> > >>
> > >
> > > NDEBUG has been documented in the assert man page since it entered Unix
> > > via PBW in the 7th Edition Unix from Bell Labs. It's part of the C
> > > standard, as well as many POSIX and SVID docs.
> > >
> >
> > Yes I can read that! Now tell me, do we build FreeBSD without assert?
> >
> > If we do, probably we can't run it without crash!
>
> So that makes it perfectly fine to continue what is a well known bad
> practice?  I do not think so.
>
> Many people have tried to persuade you that the *proper* way to check
> the return from a function is with an if statement, not with an assert,
> please try to accept that this is pretty much standard accepted portable
> 'C' coding, and realize all those places you see assert(foo) checking
> the return of a function are more than likely lurking bugs to be fixed.
>

I never said that I didn't accepted that! What I have been saying the issue
is all around and we need to fix it. Please don't twist my words!

Best,

>
> --
> Rod Grimes
> rgrimes at freebsd.org
>