Re: What policy for BUG_ON()?

[Kyle Moffett]

On Aug 31, 2004, at 13:39, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Expensive function calls won't get optimized away unless you
> mark them __attribute__((__const__)) or __attribute__((__pure__)).
> (perhaps that should be encouraged)
>
> Then of course the compiler must assume that the function
> really needed the arguments it was passed, and that it
> might have modified memory, and so on.
>
> Eh, how about a BUG_ON_WITH_SIDE_EFFECT() macro?

Due to the potentially large number of existing BUG_ON() usages with 
side
effects, it might be better to do this:

#if DEBUG
# define	BUG_ON(cond)		do { if (cond) BUG(); } while(0)
# define	BUG_CHECK(cond)		do { if (cond) BUG(); } while(0)
#else
# define	BUG_ON(cond)		do { if (cond); } while(0)
# define	BUG_CHECK(cond)		do { } while(0)
#endif

Then in most cases new statements would use BUG_CHECK, especially if
they contain expensive unnecessary function calls or critical sections.

This would break the least amount of existing code, and provide both
methods to kernel developers.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r  
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/