 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix non-debug build after c/s 23767:80e9fcdaef36
| To: | Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix non-debug build after c/s 23767:80e9fcdaef36 |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:18:50 +0100 |
| Cc: | xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:19:52 -0700 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=htwopEm9fjrOQ0dp2Js2+ApsVrxex4psaGWYD3yVQbk=; b=rUecvNwg+wd8qZY4oHJqTNJGojzYQunaJEkEHoRPldsHjf0ehEg5D79hf5GIShVI4/ Jld5NqbjJYXx0Zu7e4LhIKA09qwGuie0Kh/HqdiDZ+t5NYThMXetDefT8oyEY0Ky3e2L fEwVplceA/v2LZjRNQq9cTWcntHD793TSB2jQ= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20110822140733.GB96414@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | Acxg1mm6rYYmL9SFSkG1uX4/ErNaGA== |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix non-debug build after c/s 23767:80e9fcdaef36 |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 |
On 22/08/2011 15:07, "Tim Deegan" <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 15:02 +0100 on 22 Aug (1314025327), George Dunlap wrote:
>> That seems to compile just fine, and obviously makes the code a lot
>> cleaner. The only thing is that this will still cause functions
>> inside ASSERTS (spin_is_locked() in this case) to be called; I thought
>> part of the reason for having ASSERTs in the debug build only was to
>> reduce the cost of all the checks (the other reason to avoid
>> unnecessary crashes on production builds)?
>
> How about #define ASSERT(p) do { if (0 && (p)); } while (0) ?
Yes, if this also works then it is preferable.
-- Keir
> Tim.
>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> George,
>>>
>>> Would something like this work more generically for the non-debug case?
>>>
>>> #define ASSERT(p) do { if (p); } while (0)
>>>
>>> -- Keir
>>>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix non-debug build after c/s 23767:80e9fcdaef36, Jan Beulich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix xen hang on intel westmere-EP, Jan Beulich |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix non-debug build after c/s 23767:80e9fcdaef36, Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix non-debug build after c/s 23767:80e9fcdaef36, George Dunlap |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
