Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "assert_stm".
Did you mean:
assert_strm
2011 Jul 27
3
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
wrapping the macro's body in:
do { ... } while (false)
would make the the macro a proper statement so that:
if (cond)
ASSERT(some_other_cond);
else
do_something_cool ();
compiles as expected.
IMO, it would work as such
#define ASSERT_STM(cond,expr)
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote:
> He wants to be able to resume execution from the debugger after
> assertion failure.
>
> Reid
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Alistair Lynn <arplynn at gmail.com> wro...
2011 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
...he macro's body in:
>
> do { ... } while (false)
>
> would make the the macro a proper statement so that:
>
> if (cond)
> ASSERT(some_other_cond);
> else
> do_something_cool ();
>
> compiles as expected.
>
> IMO, it would work as such
>
> #define ASSERT_STM(cond,expr)
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> He wants to be able to resume execution from the debugger after
>> assertion failure.
>>
>> Reid
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Alist...
2011 Jul 27
1
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
...false)
>>
>> would make the the macro a proper statement so that:
>>
>> if (cond)
>> ASSERT(some_other_cond);
>> else
>> do_something_cool ();
>>
>> compiles as expected.
>>
>> IMO, it would work as such
>>
>> #define ASSERT_STM(cond,expr)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> He wants to be able to resume execution from the debugger after
>>> assertion failure.
>>>
>>> Reid
>>>
>>>...
2011 Jul 27
2
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
Hi-
> Yep, but tripping the debugger is highly non-portable.
You're suggesting that inline asm is more portable than calling abort?
Alistair
2011 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
He wants to be able to resume execution from the debugger after
assertion failure.
Reid
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Alistair Lynn <arplynn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi-
>
>> Yep, but tripping the debugger is highly non-portable.
>
> You're suggesting that inline asm is more portable than calling abort?
>
> Alistair
>
>
2011 Jul 27
5
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
...false)
>>
>> would make the the macro a proper statement so that:
>>
>> if (cond)
>> ASSERT(some_other_cond);
>> else
>> do_something_cool ();
>>
>> compiles as expected.
>>
>> IMO, it would work as such
>>
>> #define ASSERT_STM(cond,expr)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> He wants to be able to resume execution from the debugger after
>>> assertion failure.
>>>
>>> Reid
>>>
>>>...