Add VERIFY_CHECK and use CHECK macros more #54

pull sipa wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin-core:master from sipa:morecheck changing 11 files +159 −65

sipa commented at 9:35 PM on August 18, 2014: contributor

Add a new macros DEBUG_CHECK (similar to assert) and VERIFY_CHECK (which only performs CHECK() when -DVERIFY is set), and move those macros to util.h.

All internal asserts are converted to VERIFY_CHECKs, all external input validation are converted to DEBUG_CHECKs.
sipa commented at 10:09 AM on August 19, 2014: contributor

Updated to also have DEBUG_CHECK (which works very similar to assert), and use that for external input validation.
sipa commented at 10:14 AM on August 19, 2014: contributor

@gmaxwell care to review?
sipa force-pushed on Aug 25, 2014
gmaxwell commented at 10:56 PM on August 25, 2014: contributor

ACK (your check macro might like a builtin_expect to hint that its unlikely, though I suspect GCC is smart enough to do that for the abort())
Add VERIFY_CHECK/DEBUG_CHECK and use CHECK macros more 1c7fa133a6
sipa force-pushed on Aug 25, 2014
sipa commented at 11:27 PM on August 25, 2014: contributor

@gmaxwell Added.

I do indeed expect that GCC is already smart enough, but it won't hurt.
sipa merged this on Aug 26, 2014
sipa closed this on Aug 26, 2014
sipa referenced this in commit 9a57dd278a on Aug 26, 2014
sipa cross-referenced this on Aug 28, 2014 from issue The secp256k1.o object should be built with NDEBUG by sipa
sipa cross-referenced this on Aug 28, 2014 from issue Assertion `a->limbs + b->limbs <= 2*((256+(64 - 0)-1)/(64 - 0))+1' failed. by dpc
real-or-random referenced this in commit f4f374700b on May 31, 2019

Contributors

#38 The secp256k1.o object should be built with NDEBUG #43 Assertion `a->limbs + b->limbs <= 2*((256+(64 - 0)-1)/(64 - 0))+1' failed.