Re: [PATCH 01/39] docs/spin: replace assert(0) with g_assert_not_reached()

[Maciej S. Szmigiero]

On 11.09.2024 14:37, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 07:33:59AM GMT, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:15:28PM GMT, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > A general suggestion for the entire series: please use a commit
> > message that explains why this is a good idea.  Even something as
> > boiler-plate as "refer to commit XXX for rationale" that can be
> > copy-pasted into all the other commits is better than nothing,
> > although a self-contained message is best.  Maybe:
> >
> > This patch is part of a series that moves towards a consistent use of
> > g_assert_not_reached() rather than an ad hoc mix of different
> > assertion mechanisms.
>
> Or summarize your cover letter:
>
> Use of assert(false) can trip spurious control flow warnings from some
> versions of gcc:
> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/54bb02a6-1b12-460a-97f6-3f478ef766c6@linaro.org/
> Solve that by unifying the code base on g_assert_not_reached()
> instead.

If using g_assert_not_reached() instead of assert(false) silences
the warning about missing return value in such impossible to reach
locations should we also be deleting the now-unnecessary "return"
statements after g_assert_not_reached()?

Thanks,
Maciej