Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED}[PATCH] leaking connection handles

On 28/10/11 16:06, Noel Power wrote:
>  Without getting into a religous war about it I
> personally don't buy that OSL_ENSURE should abort ( I am though a
> believer in that behaviour for for OSL_ASSERT ) Perhaps I am abusing the
> true use for OSL_ENSURE, maybe there is a case for an OSL_WARNING ( but
> do we really need yet another macro )

#define OSL_TRACE           _OSL_TRACE
#define OSL_ASSERT(c)       _OSL_ENSURE(c, OSL_THIS_FILE, __LINE__, 0)
#define OSL_ENSURE(c, m)   _OSL_ENSURE(c, OSL_THIS_FILE, __LINE__, m)
#define OSL_FAIL(m)        _OSL_ENSURE(0, OSL_THIS_FILE, __LINE__, m)

so OSL_ASSERT and OSL_ENSURE are basically the same thing, the latter 
just takes a message.

if you want something with different intent from OSL_ENSURE then just 
use OSL_TRACE.

perhaps OSL_WARNING could be something like: if (c) { OSL_TRACE(m); }
but it does not exist now...