Issue 42225: Change some DCHECK( == 0), to DCHECK_EQ in the posix lock implementation.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Issue 42225: Change some DCHECK( == 0), to DCHECK_EQ in the posix lock implementation. (Closed)

Created:
11 years, 9 months ago by Dean McNamee

Modified:
9 years, 7 months ago

Reviewers:
Paweł Hajdan Jr.

CC:
chromium-reviews_googlegroups.com

Visibility:
Public.

Description

Change DCHECK( == 0) to DCHECK_EQ in the posix lock implementation. It is helpful to see the actual value during a check failure.

Patch Set 1 #

Created: 11 years, 9 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+7 lines, -7 lines)			Patch
	M	base/lock_impl_posix.cc	View		3 chunks	+7 lines, -7 lines	0 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

Paweł Hajdan Jr.

I noticed a pattern with ASSERT_EQ, that the expected value goes first, and tested one ...

11 years, 9 months ago (2009-03-16 12:55:06 UTC) #2

Dean McNamee

11 years, 9 months ago (2009-03-16 13:01:43 UTC) #3

With the current ordering, it is most similar to how you would write it using
DCHECK().  For example, here is the output before and after my change:

[...] Check failed: rv == 0. 

[...] Check failed: rv == 0 (22 vs. 0)

I prefer this ordering, but thanks bringing it up.

On 2009/03/16 12:55:06, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> I noticed a pattern with ASSERT_EQ, that the expected value goes first, and
> tested one second. I ran a quick git grep on base/ and it seems that a similar
> pattern is generally followed with DCHECK_EQ.
> 
> You may want to change the order of parameters in DCHECK_EQ calls.
> 
> After that, LGTM.

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages