Re: [reSIProcate] replacing assertions
On 17/12/14 21:20, Jeremy Geras wrote:
> One potential issue for us -- we're currently using resip + DUM on some
> firmware, where we'd prefer to completely disable exceptions. Currently
> we enable them and just "live with" the extra binary size. Adding more
> exceptions might cause issues.
Thanks for this feedback, this is one of the reasons I put these ideas
on the list before changing anything
Would you prefer something like a resip_assert() macro that you can
define the way you want?
Or would you prefer to see some methods tweaked to return error codes
instead of throwing exceptions?
The reasons I suggest exceptions:
a) we don't have to modify the API to return error codes from functions
that fail, we can just introduce exceptions be defining the resip_assert
macro to throw. Unhandled exceptions just stop the program like an
assert anyway.
b) constructors can't return an error code if they are given invalid
data or can't initialize. We have a lot of logic in constructors and
changing them would be quite dramatic.