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]

this while (TRUE); means that "OS can't function anymore if this 
codepath is executed". It's a fatal, terminal way, so there is no power 
to save :)

On 04.01.2013 18:11, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo wrote:
>   well, IMO, "while(true)" means CPU is
> permanently busy, while an 
>  ASSERT stops CPU from running ....
>  just a matter of power saving....
>
>  and i repeat, its just an opinion....
>
>  On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Aleksey Bragin <aleksey(a)reactos.org 
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>      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
>      <mailto:[e-mail]> 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
>