Behaviour change for double-free'ing a pointer

[Aaron J. Grier]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:44:15PM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> This begs a bigger question... should RTEMS assert at all?

it raises the question, but doesn't beg it.  begging the question would
be claiming that RTEMS should assert because it already does.

> Most of the asserts I have analyzed over the past couple of months
> cannot occur unless there is a data corruption problem or problem with
> the RTEMS internal logic.  Those are being marked with RTEMS_DEBUG
> conditionals.  Otherwise they are untestable dead code.
> 
> Should it be possible for RTEMS provided code to halt at run-time?

assuming RTEMS doesn't have internal logic problems (=, what should
RTEMS do in the case of data corruption?  for my application, dropping
back to a bootloader and reloading the system is the safest thing to do,
so assert() is fine for me.  others may have more complicated
error-recovery mechanisms, so compile with -DNDEBUG.  it really depends
on the application, and in the embedded world, there seems to be an
exception for every rule-of-thumb.

I believe it should be possible and optional for RTEMS to halt at
run-time.

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier  |   Frye Electronics, Tigard, OR   |  aaron at frye.com