1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CANEZrP075mWzMEaU72eoYqktrc2VcbyD_Fhb7N0CzvWoAgMYcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1401822421.27942.YahooMailNeo@web124505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CANEZrP18nf0oK6fbnE59opXxfMdwiOOu4v99iGyXyGo_7NLuYA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTM30oFLGpkCwqM5Wf-Crmz5s05X-uWXAiGy9u43nbKvQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP075mWzMEaU72eoYqktrc2VcbyD_Fhb7N0CzvWoAgMYcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 03:31:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQZT2y7CQBM8PZe5d5RCB-2L__+AOx4uPEE8jdR2GYUQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
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"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>, Ron <rdwnj@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error "Bitcoin cannot be compiled
without assertions." <<<<NOT
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:31:33 -0000
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> 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.
|
