On 8/23/24 3:49 PM, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> writes:
static tree
get_awaitable_var (suspend_point_kind suspend_kind, tree v_type)
{
- static int awn = 0;
+ auto cinfo = get_coroutine_info (current_function_decl);
+ gcc_assert (cinfo);
If the purpose of this is to check for mistakes during development (i.e. we do
not see a reason for having it in a released compiler) - then it’s better to use
gcc_checking_assert() which will disappear for non-checking builds.
I figured it was OK since this check is extremely light - I can use
gcc_checking_assert if you prefer. No strong feelings in this instance.
In addition to the expense consideration, I think of _checking_ as being
for things that I expect to be true, but the code might do something
reasonable even if they aren't, and gcc_assert for things where the
result is going to be complete nonsense if it isn't true.
Here, it'll immediately SEGV when trying to dereference a null pointer
anyway in most cases, just not in the INITIAL/FINAL_SUSPEND_POINT cases.
They don't seem to have any dependence on nonnull cinfo, so I think
_checking_ is the right choice.
OK with that tweak and the testsuite fix.
Jason
