Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(77)

Unified Diff: third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/wtf/Assertions.h

Issue 2919653004: Use LOG() or LOG_IF() instead of IMMEDIATE_CRASH (Closed)
Patch Set: Use LOG() or CHECKi()|CHECK_FOO() instead of IMMEDIATE_CRASH Created 3 years, 7 months ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View side-by-side diff with in-line comments
Download patch
Index: third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/wtf/Assertions.h
diff --git a/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/wtf/Assertions.h b/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/wtf/Assertions.h
index e89a7cd605c9b0b75721f9f21b61bea43d7d1c1b..a29061900ffa413265de1af7b0e039dec9c97922 100644
--- a/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/wtf/Assertions.h
+++ b/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/wtf/Assertions.h
@@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ class WTF_EXPORT ScopedLogger {
// https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/entry?template=Security%20Bug
#if ENABLE_SECURITY_ASSERT
#define SECURITY_DCHECK(condition) \
- LOG_IF(FATAL, !(condition)) << "Security DCHECK failed: " #condition ". "
+ CHECK(condition) << "Security DCHECK failed: " #condition ". "
tkent 2017/06/05 01:58:51 Do not replace this. LOG_IF and CHECK produce dif
gyuyoung 2017/06/05 02:32:29 Do you mean that LOG_IF() should be kept ?
tkent 2017/06/05 02:34:55 Yes.
// A SECURITY_CHECK failure is actually not vulnerable.
#define SECURITY_CHECK(condition) \
- LOG_IF(FATAL, !(condition)) << "Security CHECK failed: " #condition ". "
+ CHECK(condition) << "Security CHECK failed: " #condition ". "
tkent 2017/06/05 01:58:51 Ditto.
#else
#define SECURITY_DCHECK(condition) ((void)0)
#define SECURITY_CHECK(condition) CHECK(condition)

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698