On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:17:28 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:59:17 GMT > Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + BUG_ON(bind_irq_vector(irq, vector)); > > It's not good practice to do assert(expression-with-side-effects). Because > if someone wants to create a build which has all the assertions disabled, > the resulting binary will not work. > > In the present implementation our BUG_ON(expression) will evaluate > `expression' even if CONFIG_BUG=n. But that's totally lame and we are just > leaving optimisation opportunities on the floor. > > Our objective _should_ be to make BUG_ON(expr) generate no code at all if > CONFIG_BUG=n. > > So please, prefer to do > > if (bind_irq_vector(irq, vector)) > BUG(); > hm, now I think about it, our present implementation seems OK. If you have CONFIG_BUG=n then this: BUG_ON(foo < bar); will generate no code and this: BUG_ON(some_function()); will still call some_function(). So I guess we're OK. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|