Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 58110: while (TRUE); (when something is unimplemented) ---> ASSERT(FALSE); // while (TRUE); (unless we deal with a 'noreturn' function), and in some cases, return an adequate value. Part...

[Aleksey Bragin]

With all respect, I don't understand many of these changes. Answering 
between the lines.

On 04.01.2013 15:47, hbelusca(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
>     NTSTATUS
>  @@ -643,7 +643,8 @@
>        /* FIXME: TODO */
>        DPRINT1("You have implemented the KD routines for searching PCI
> debugger"
>                "devices, but you have forgotten to implement this routine\n");
>  -    while (TRUE);
>  +    UNIMPLEMENTED;
>  +    ASSERT(FALSE); // while (TRUE);
>    } 
It already prints a mandatory log message that this part is 
unimplemented. And execution is supposed to stop after printing this 
message, because it's meaningless to continue (that's why while(TRUE); 
was put there in the first place).

>     
>    static ULONG NTAPI
>  @@ -678,7 +679,7 @@
>        {
>            /* /PCILOCK is not yet supported */
>            UNIMPLEMENTED;
>  -        while (TRUE);
>  +        ASSERT(FALSE); // while (TRUE);
>        }
>    #endif
>        /* Now create the correct resource list based on the supported bus ranges */
It already has UNIMPLEMENTED; and now you added an ASSERT(FALSE); which 
essentially is the same thing. And if continuation is possible, then 
just UNIMPLEMENTED would be enough.

I'd like some general solution to this. Like, UNIMPLEMENTED_FATAL() or 
something like that.

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Aleksey Bragin