change log for rtems (2010-06-24)

[Chris Johns]

On 25/06/10 5:10 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>> I don't think that this explosion of ifdef is good.
>
> ACK.
>> Why not add a
>> rtems_assert() which is defined in case of RTEMS_DEBUG?
>>
> Why? Haven't you guys heard about NDEBUG?
>
> All these defines are superfluous.
>

The only issue with NDEBUG is the interaction with an application. If a 
user uses NDEBUG in an application what happens to RTEMS includes etc if 
RTEMS is not built with NDEBUG ?

A single common method in RTEMS would be nice and I do not care much 
what it is. All I ask is it being controlled by configure's --enable-debug.

Chris