Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes:
>
>> Ah, ok, I thought you talked about the existing 'assert' module in
>> gnulib, which looks unrelated to what you are proposing.
>
> I'm actually thinking that that it would be better to make the
> existing assert
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes:
>> Couldn't a replacement assert.h look like:
>>
>> #include
>> #include "progname.h"
>>
>> #ifdef NDEBUG
>> # define assert(e) ((void) 0)
>> #else
>> # define assert(e) \
Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes:
> Ah, ok, I thought you talked about the existing 'assert' module in
> gnulib, which looks unrelated to what you are proposing.
I'm actually thinking that that it would be better to make the existing assert
module serve the two orthogonal purposes (provide
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to Simon Josefsson on 3/3/2008 9:07 AM:
> |> I like the idea. I would also like to see the assert module use it, if
> the
> |> platform's assert() lacks __func__ information as required by C99/POSIX
> 2001.
> |
> | How can that be implemented? T
