Re: [PATCH 01/39] docs/spin: replace assert(0) with g_assert_not_reached()

[Pierrick Bouvier]

On 9/11/24 05:51, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 02:46:18PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> > On 11.09.2024 14:37, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 07:33:59AM GMT, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:15:28PM GMT, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > A general suggestion for the entire series: please use a commit
> > > > message that explains why this is a good idea.  Even something as
> > > > boiler-plate as "refer to commit XXX for rationale" that can be
> > > > copy-pasted into all the other commits is better than nothing,
> > > > although a self-contained message is best.  Maybe:
> > > >
> > > > This patch is part of a series that moves towards a consistent use of
> > > > g_assert_not_reached() rather than an ad hoc mix of different
> > > > assertion mechanisms.
> > >
> > > Or summarize your cover letter:
> > >
> > > Use of assert(false) can trip spurious control flow warnings from some
> > > versions of gcc:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/54bb02a6-1b12-460a-97f6-3f478ef766c6@linaro.org/
> > > Solve that by unifying the code base on g_assert_not_reached()
> > > instead.
> >
> > If using g_assert_not_reached() instead of assert(false) silences
> > the warning about missing return value in such impossible to reach
> > locations should we also be deleting the now-unnecessary "return"
> > statements after g_assert_not_reached()?
>
> Although it's unlikely to be used on any compiler that can also
> compile qemu, there is a third implementation of g_assert_not_reached
> that does nothing, see:
>
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/blob/927683ebd94eb66c0d7868b77863f57ce9c5bc76/glib/gtestutils.h#L269
>
> Rich.

Interesting.
At least gcc, clang and msvc are covered, this should be ok for most of 
the builds.

Thanks for sharing,
Pierrick