[libcxx] Never use <cassert> within libc++
Summary:
It is my opinion that libc++ should never use `<cassert>`, including in the `dylib`. This patch remove all uses of `assert` from within libc++ and replaces most of them with `_LIBCPP_ASSERT` instead.
Additionally this patch turn `LIBCXX_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS` off by default, because the standard library should not be aborting user programs unless explicitly asked to.
Reviewers: mclow.lists, compnerd, smeenai
Reviewed By: mclow.lists
Subscribers: mgorny, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29063
llvm-svn: 292883
Cr-Mirrored-From: sso://chromium.googlesource.com/_direct/external/github.com/llvm/llvm-project
Cr-Mirrored-Commit: d5fd7d7ea152be8e0c6bed31be690cb020e9d96b
diff --git a/src/mutex.cpp b/src/mutex.cpp
index 338b79f..b858e88 100644
--- a/src/mutex.cpp
+++ b/src/mutex.cpp
@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@
#include "mutex"
#include "limits"
#include "system_error"
-#include "cassert"
#include "include/atomic_support.h"
_LIBCPP_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_STD
@@ -45,7 +44,7 @@
{
int ec = __libcpp_mutex_unlock(&__m_);
(void)ec;
- assert(ec == 0);
+ _LIBCPP_ASSERT(ec == 0, "call to mutex::unlock failed");
}
// recursive_mutex
@@ -61,7 +60,7 @@
{
int e = __libcpp_recursive_mutex_destroy(&__m_);
(void)e;
- assert(e == 0);
+ _LIBCPP_ASSERT(e == 0, "call to ~recursive_mutex() failed");
}
void
@@ -77,7 +76,7 @@
{
int e = __libcpp_recursive_mutex_unlock(&__m_);
(void)e;
- assert(e == 0);
+ _LIBCPP_ASSERT(e == 0, "call to recursive_mutex::unlock() failed");
}
bool