From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 23:39:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Introduce BUG_ON(cond, msg) MACRO
Message-ID: <20171122233905.GC8577@sigill>
In-Reply-To: <20171122232814.GH11671@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 03:28:14PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> > I do like human readable messages. But sometimes such a message just
> > makes the code harder to read (and to write). E.g., is there any real
> > value in:
> >
> >   BUG_ON(!foo, "called bar() with a foo!");
> >
> > over:
> >
> >   assert(foo);
> 
> I think you're hinting at wanting
> 
> 	BUG_ON(!foo);
> 
> which is something that the Linux kernel has (and which is not done in
> this series).

Yes. I'd be fine having a single-argument BUG_ON() like that. But then,
I'm not sure what it's buying us over assert().

I get why the kernel cannot use the default "dump core and exit"
behavior of assert(), but that's basically what our BUG() does.

-Peff