[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
You can create your own header to do this.  This does not have to be in the
compiler or the libc.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[olafvdspek at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |---

--- Comment #2 from Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek at gmail dot com> ---
I could create my own header for assert() too, but it's still in the standard.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well don't call it assert, call it my_assert or something like that.

We should not be adding random extensions if they can be done other places. 
Also I think assert.h comes from libc and not GCC.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[olafvdspek at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |---

--- Comment #4 from Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Well don't call it assert, call it my_assert or something like that.
> 
> We should not be adding random extensions if they can be done other places. 

Then what is the criteria for including something in GCC (or libc)?
And what'd be a better place?

> Also I think assert.h comes from libc and not GCC.

glibc?

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
Standards acceptance.  Ideally Standard C, but POSIX is also possible.

There is no need for this to reside in GCC.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Olaf van der Spek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > Well don't call it assert, call it my_assert or something like that.
> > 
> > We should not be adding random extensions if they can be done other places. 
> 
> Then what is the criteria for including something in GCC (or libc)?

If it is part of a standard or is needed for a language feature is the criteria
for GCC/glibc.

> And what'd be a better place?

Your own library.

> 
> > Also I think assert.h comes from libc and not GCC.
> 
> glibc?

well it depends on your target but for GNU/Linux, it is glibc.  For
Android/Linux, it is bionic.  But there are other libc's besides those two out
there for Linux.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[olafvdspek at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

--- Comment #7 from Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Your own library.

Reinventing the wheel time and time again leads to code duplication which is
bad.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
So convince one of the standards body that your macro is a good thing to add.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[olafvdspek at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

--- Comment #9 from Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek at gmail dot com> ---
Standards bodies prefer to standardize existing practise, so I think that's the
wrong way to go. Ideally it's first implemented and only then it gets
standardized.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
Standards also sometimes invent new interfaces if the need arises.

[Bug c/60639] New Assert Variants

[olafvdspek at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60639

--- Comment #11 from Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek at gmail dot com> ---
Perhaps, but that's not the ideal route.