From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ws8Tl-0007tO-2b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:31:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Ws8Ti-0002Q1-Sf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:31:33 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id pn19so4229183lab.20 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:31:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.171.101 with SMTP id at5mr1247232lbc.83.1401877884052; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 03:31:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1401822421.27942.YahooMailNeo@web124505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 03:31:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Ws8Ti-0002Q1-Sf Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" , Ron Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error "Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions." <<< List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:31:33 -0000 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> As a matter of procedure we do not use assertions with side effects=E2= =80=94 the >> codebase did at one point, but have cleaned them up. In an abundance of >> caution we also made it refuse to compile without assertions enabled: A >> decision who's wisdom was clearly demonstrated when not long after, some >> additional side-effect having assert was contributed. In the real world >> errors happen here and there, and making robust software involves defens= e in >> depth. > > > I think this class of errors could be removed entirely by just saying it'= s > OK for assertions to have side effects and requiring them to be enabled, = as > is currently done. > > The glog library: > > http://google-glog.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/glog.html > > provides CHECK macros that print stack traces when they fail. Using them > would also be good. Yes... it takes only about 10 lines of code to have a nicer assert than the posix one, all my own software does... and with the noreturn attribute on the failure path it behaves the same for most static analysis tools as a regular assert does. I would have just dropped one in, but an IFDEF seemed more prudent at the time.