Re: [PATCH 2/3] Fix build with -DNDEBUG

[Jan Palus <jpalus@fastmail.com>]

On 15.05.2026 14:13, David Gibson wrote:
> Since bc872d91765d, our assert() statements are omitted if we compile with
> -DNDEBUG, like the standard library assert(3).  Unfortunately a trivial but
> embarrassing mistake in that patch means that instead of never aborting in
> this case, assert_with_msg() *always* aborts, breaking pretty much
> everything.
> 
> There's also a missing #include that breaks the build with -DNDEBUG on at
> least some library versions.
> 
> Reported-by: Jan Palus <jpalus@fastmail.com>
> Fixes: bc872d91765d ("treewide: Spell ASSERT() as assert()")
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> ---
>  util.h | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/util.h b/util.h
> index 70aadeba..11f71d45 100644
> --- a/util.h
> +++ b/util.h
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  #ifndef UTIL_H
>  #define UTIL_H
>  
> +#include <assert.h>
>  #include <stdlib.h>
>  #include <stdarg.h>
>  #include <stdbool.h>
> @@ -60,7 +61,7 @@ void abort_with_msg(const char *fmt, ...)
>  			__func__, __FILE__, __LINE__, STRINGIFY(expr))
>  #else
>  #define assert_with_msg(expr, ...)					\
> -	((void)(expr), 0 ? (void)0 : abort_with_msg(__VA_ARGS__))
> +	((void)(expr), 1 ? (void)0 : abort_with_msg(__VA_ARGS__))

There is a slight semantic difference between assert() and
assert_with_msg() when building with -DNDEBUG -- `expr` is still being
evaluated in abort_with_msg() although likely optimized out in most
builds. I'm assuming you'd prefer to avoid cppcheck suppressions. How
about moving `expr` into branch which is never evaluated then? Would it
keep cppcheck happy?

+	(1 ? (void)0 : ((void)(expr), abort_with_msg(__VA_ARGS__)))

>  #endif
>  
>  #ifdef P_tmpdir
> -- 
> 2.54.0
>