change log for rtems (2010-06-24)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 06/25/2010 09:19 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
> 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 ?
You are outsmarting yourself.
* newlib and the gcclibs all are built without NDEBUG.
* compiling RTEMS with -DNDEBUG is a micro-optimization only affecting RTEMS

* assert.h is guaranteed to be present. Conditionally including assert.h 
doesn't buy you anything.


> 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.
--enable-debug is supposed to enable some internal debug aids. It is not 
supposed to interact with NDEBUG.

Ralf