Updated patch

[Tim Moloney]

John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 21:50 -0400, Tim Moloney wrote:
>   
>> John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 15:50 -0400, Tim Moloney wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> On Mon 2005-12-05 at 13:56:07 PST, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  > On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 13:33 +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> 8853: assertion failed "(*(const char*)_DBUS_FUNCTION_NAME) != '_'" 
>>>> file "dbus-connection.c" line 2877 function 
>>>> _dbus_connection_read_write_dispatch
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> Which appears to enforce that _dbus_return_val_if_fail can only be
>>>>  >> called from functions that don't start with an underscore. I have no
>>>>  >> idea why this is, but have accordingly moved the calls to that into the
>>>>  >> wrapper functions.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > The underscore functions are internal/private, and return_if_fail should
>>>>  > only be used to check correctness of arguments to public API. For
>>>>  > private API, just use dbus_assert() (and be sure public API that calls
>>>>  > the private API has return_if_fail so we don't hit the assert when
>>>>  > checks are enabled)
>>>>
>>>> I found the above in the list archive.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand it correctly, then the asserts are incorrect in 
>>>> dbus_connection_read_write, dbus_connection_read_write_dispatch, and 
>>>> _dbus_connection_read_write_dispatch.  I've attached a patch that I 
>>>> believe corrects the problem.  I think this is what Matthew Johnson said 
>>>> he did to get these functions working.  This patch works on my FC5 
>>>> system but should be tested more thoroughly.
>>>>
>>>> On a related note, the FC5 spec file is producing code with the asserts 
>>>> enabled although the spec file appears to be only enabling the asserts 
>>>> for a 'make check' run.  I mention this in case anyone here has 
>>>> influence over the FC5 spec file (and can figure out why it's enabling 
>>>> asserts).
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> To catch errors. I don't think I will take them out until we hit 1.0.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> The asserts weren't taken out.  They were moved from the one internal 
>> work method (see above, where Havoc Pennington said they don't belong) 
>> to the two wrapper methods (where he said they do belong) which are the 
>> only two methods that calls the internal work method.
>>
>> I don't believe there is a change in function or loss of capability.  
>> Without the patch, I don't see how dbus_connection_read_write and 
>> dbus_connection_read_write_dispatch can ever work with asserts enabled. 
>>
>> The patch corrects a problem which is unfortunately compounded by the 
>> broken FC5 spec file.
>>     
>
> I was referring to the spec file in my last comment.  No it is not
> broken.  The asserts are turned on to catch errors - in this case an
> error with the assert code itself but more importantly to catch what
> could be major bugs before we go 1.0.  Patch looks good.  Thanks.
>
>   

Oops.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Tim Moloney