[boost] Re: A better assert() This is it!!!

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 10:13:04

hartmutkaiser_at_[hidden] (Hartmut Kaiser) writes:

> Dan W. wrote:
>
>> > That's more or less the same as contained in almost every 
>> <assert.h> header.
>> > So what's new with your suggestion?
>> 
>> asm int 3
>> 
>> assert() terminates the program and displays a stupid message.
>> 
>> verify() works like a Break-Point, it just stops on the line 
>> that failed to verify, and you can look at the variables, 
>> change them;  you can choose to single-step from there.  And 
>> without the __FILE__ and __LINE__ macros, it's a lot more 
>> ligthweight... *Use by the thousands!*
>> 
>> The only problem with it is that it breaks the C/C++ 
>> tradition of naming things something completely removed from 
>> what they actually do... :)
>
> At least at Intel platforms assert() is nothing more, than a fancy wrapper
> for asm 3 (at least for VC7.1)! 

And vc6, and vc7, and intel 5,6,7,8...

But not metrowerks, or cygwin gcc.  I forget about MinGW.  I don't
know about Borland either.

> And as for __LINE__ and __FILE__ - it's a matter of taste, if you
> want them to be included or not. I like to have this info.

Me too.
-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com