Well, an ASSERT is supposed to assert something. If it get's triggered, there's obviously something wrong. Putting an ASSERT that is known to be (potentially) triggered defies the purpose of an ASSERT. For example it doesn't make sense to ASSERT that a usermode caller doesn't pass a certain flag. A BSOD is not the solution to currently mot having implemented something. A DPRINT1 will do just fine (if we finally stopped DPRINTing all sorts of crap, creating MBs of debuglogs that noone can analyze, and instead added DPRINTs in places where it actually makes sense </rant>) So the ASSERT should be replaced with a DPRINT1.
Timo
Am 06.10.2014 17:29, schrieb Alex Ionescu:
The ASSERT is there because of the missing functionality. Please see the comment just above.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:57 AM, <jgardou@svn.reactos.org mailto:jgardou@svn.reactos.org> wrote:
Author: jgardou Date: Sun Oct 5 09:57:02 2014 New Revision: 64537 URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=64537&view=rev Log: [NTOS/MM] - Do not assert in case of stack overflow, just let the page fault handler raise STATUS_STACK_OVERFLOW Modified: trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/pagfault.c Modified: trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/pagfault.c URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/pagfault.c?rev=64537&r1=64536&r2=64537&view=diff ============================================================================== --- trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/pagfault.c [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/ARM3/pagfault.c [iso-8859-1] Sun Oct 5 09:57:02 2014 @@ -82,7 +82,6 @@ { /* We don't -- Windows would try to make this guard page valid now */ DPRINT1("Close to our death...\n"); - ASSERT(FALSE); return STATUS_STACK_OVERFLOW; }
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev