pw_assert#
Flexible crash triggering and handling
Stable C C++
Overview#
Pigweed’s assert module enables applications to check preconditions, triggering a crash if the condition is not met. Consistent use of asserts is one aspect of defensive programming that can lead to more reliable and less buggy code.
The assert API facilitates flexible crash handling through Pigweed’s facade mechanism. The API is designed to enable features like:
Optional ancillary printf-style messages along assertions
Capturing actual values of binary operator assertions like
a < b
Compatibility with pw_tokenizer for reduced binary code size
The pw_assert
API provides three classes of macros:
PW_CRASH(format, …) - Trigger a crash with a message.
PW_CHECK(condition[, format, …]) - Assert a condition, optionally with a message.
PW_CHECK_<type>_<cmp>(a, b[, fmt, …]) - Assert that the expression
a <cmp> b
is true, optionally with a message.PW_ASSERT(condition) - Header- and constexpr-safe assert.
Tip
All of the CHECK
macros optionally support a message with additional
arguments, to assist in debugging when an assert triggers:
PW_CHECK_INT_LE(ItemCount(), 100);
PW_CHECK_INT_LE(ItemCount(), 100, "System state: %s", GetStateStr());
To ensure compatibility with pw_assert_log and pw_log_tokenized, the message must be a string literal.
Example#
#include "pw_assert/check.h"
int main() {
bool sensor_running = StartSensor(&msg);
PW_CHECK(sensor_running, "Sensor failed to start; code: %s", msg);
int temperature_c = ReadSensorCelcius();
PW_CHECK_INT_LE(temperature_c, 100,
"System is way out of heat spec; state=%s",
ReadSensorStateString());
}
Tip
All macros have both a CHECK
and DCHECK
variant. The CHECK
variant is always enabled, even in production. Generally, we advise making
most asserts CHECK
rather than DCHECK
, unless there is a critical
performance or code size reason to use DCHECK
.
// This assert is always enabled, even in production.
PW_CHECK_INT_LE(ItemCount(), 100);
// This assert is enabled based on ``PW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG``.
// The functions ItemCount() and GetStateStr() are never called.
PW_DCHECK_INT_LE(ItemCount(), 100, "System state: %s", GetStateStr());
Tip
Use PW_ASSERT
from pw_assert/assert.h
for asserts in headers or
asserting in constexpr
contexts.
Structure of Assert Modules#
The module is split into two components:
The facade (this module) which is only a macro interface layer, and performs the actual checks for the conditions.
The backend, provided elsewhere, that handles the consequences of an assert failing. Example backends include
pw_assert_basic
, which prints a useful message and either quits the application (on host) or hangs in a while loop (on device). In the future, there will be a tokenized assert backend. This is also where application or product specific crash handling would go.
See the Backend API section below for more details.
Facade API#
The below functions describe the assert API functions that applications should
invoke to assert. These macros are found in the pw_assert/check.h
header.
-
PW_CRASH(format, ...)#
Trigger a crash with a message. Replaces LOG_FATAL() in other systems. Can include a message with format arguments; for example:
PW_CRASH("Unexpected: frobnitz in state: %s", frobnitz_state);
Note:
PW_CRASH
is the equivalent ofLOG_FATAL
in other systems, where a device crash is triggered with a message. In Pigweed, logging and crashing/asserting are separated. There is aLOG_CRITICAL
level in the logging module, but it does not have side effects; forLOG_FATAL
, instead use this macro (PW_CRASH
).
-
PW_CHECK(condition)#
-
PW_CHECK(condition, format, ...)#
-
PW_DCHECK(condition)#
-
PW_DCHECK(condition, format, ...)#
Assert that a condition is true, optionally including a message with arguments to report if the codition is false.
The
DCHECK
variants only run ifPW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG
is enabled; otherwise, the entire statement is removed (and the expression not evaluated).Example:
PW_CHECK(StartTurbines()); PW_CHECK(StartWarpDrive(), "Oddly warp drive couldn't start; ruh-roh!"); PW_CHECK(RunSelfTest(), "Failure in self test; try %d", TestAttempts());
Attention
Don’t use use
PW_CHECK
for binary comparisons or status checks!Instead, use the
PW_CHECK_<TYPE>_<OP>
macros. These macros enable capturing the value of the operands, and also tokenizing them if using a tokenizing assert backend. For example, ifx
andb
are integers, use insteadPW_CHECK_INT_LT(x, b)
.Additionally, use
PW_CHECK_OK(status)
when checking for an OK status, since it enables showing a human-readable status string rather than an integer (e.g.status == RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED
instead ofstatus == 5
. This works with any expression convertible topw::Status
, includingpw::StatusWithString
andpw::Result<T>
.Do NOT do this
Do this instead
PW_CHECK(a_int < b_int)
PW_CHECK_INT_LT(a_int, b_int)
PW_CHECK(a_ptr <= b_ptr)
PW_CHECK_PTR_LE(a_ptr, b_ptr)
PW_CHECK(Temp() <= 10.0)
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_LE(
`` Temp(), 10.0)``PW_CHECK(Foo() == OkStatus())
PW_CHECK_OK(Foo())
-
PW_CHECK_NOTNULL(ptr)#
-
PW_CHECK_NOTNULL(ptr, format, ...)#
-
PW_DCHECK_NOTNULL(ptr)#
-
PW_DCHECK_NOTNULL(ptr, format, ...)#
Assert that the given pointer is not
NULL
, optionally including a message with arguments to report if the pointer isNULL
.The
DCHECK
variants only run ifPW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG
is enabled; otherwise, the entire statement is removed (and the expression not evaluated).Foo* foo = GetTheFoo() PW_CHECK_NOTNULL(foo); Bar* bar = GetSomeBar(); PW_CHECK_NOTNULL(bar, "Weirdly got NULL bar; state: %d", MyState());
-
PW_CHECK_TYPE_OP(a, b)#
-
PW_CHECK_TYPE_OP(a, b, format, ...)#
-
PW_DCHECK_TYPE_OP(a, b)#
-
PW_DCHECK_TYPE_OP(a, b, format, ...)#
Asserts that
a OP b
is true, wherea
andb
are converted toTYPE
; withOP
andTYPE
described below.If present, the optional format message is reported on failure. Depending on the backend, values of
a
andb
will also be reported.The
DCHECK
variants only run ifPW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG
is enabled; otherwise, the entire statement is removed (and the expression not evaluated).Example, with no message:
PW_CHECK_INT_LE(CurrentTemperature(), 100); PW_CHECK_INT_LE(ItemCount(), 100);
Example, with an included message and arguments:
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_GE(BatteryVoltage(), 3.2, "System state=%s", SysState());
Below is the full list of binary comparison assert macros, along with the type specifier. The specifier is irrelevant to application authors but is needed for backend implementers.
Macro
a, b type
condition
a, b format specifier
PW_CHECK_INT_LE
int
a <= b
%d
PW_CHECK_INT_LT
int
a < b
%d
PW_CHECK_INT_GE
int
a >= b
%d
PW_CHECK_INT_GT
int
a > b
%d
PW_CHECK_INT_EQ
int
a == b
%d
PW_CHECK_INT_NE
int
a != b
%d
PW_CHECK_UINT_LE
unsigned int
a <= b
%u
PW_CHECK_UINT_LT
unsigned int
a < b
%u
PW_CHECK_UINT_GE
unsigned int
a >= b
%u
PW_CHECK_UINT_GT
unsigned int
a > b
%u
PW_CHECK_UINT_EQ
unsigned int
a == b
%u
PW_CHECK_UINT_NE
unsigned int
a != b
%u
PW_CHECK_PTR_LE
void*
a <= b
%p
PW_CHECK_PTR_LT
void*
a < b
%p
PW_CHECK_PTR_GE
void*
a >= b
%p
PW_CHECK_PTR_GT
void*
a > b
%p
PW_CHECK_PTR_EQ
void*
a == b
%p
PW_CHECK_PTR_NE
void*
a != b
%p
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_LE
float
a <= b
%f
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_LT
float
a < b
%f
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_GE
float
a >= b
%f
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_GT
float
a > b
%f
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_EQ
float
a == b
%f
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_NE
float
a != b
%f
The above
CHECK_*_*()
are also available in DCHECK variants, which will only evaluate their arguments and trigger if thePW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG
macro is enabled.Macro
a, b type
condition
a, b format specifier
PW_DCHECK_INT_LE
int
a <= b
%d
PW_DCHECK_INT_LT
int
a < b
%d
PW_DCHECK_INT_GE
int
a >= b
%d
PW_DCHECK_INT_GT
int
a > b
%d
PW_DCHECK_INT_EQ
int
a == b
%d
PW_DCHECK_INT_NE
int
a != b
%d
PW_DCHECK_UINT_LE
unsigned int
a <= b
%u
PW_DCHECK_UINT_LT
unsigned int
a < b
%u
PW_DCHECK_UINT_GE
unsigned int
a >= b
%u
PW_DCHECK_UINT_GT
unsigned int
a > b
%u
PW_DCHECK_UINT_EQ
unsigned int
a == b
%u
PW_DCHECK_UINT_NE
unsigned int
a != b
%u
PW_DCHECK_PTR_LE
void*
a <= b
%p
PW_DCHECK_PTR_LT
void*
a < b
%p
PW_DCHECK_PTR_GE
void*
a >= b
%p
PW_DCHECK_PTR_GT
void*
a > b
%p
PW_DCHECK_PTR_EQ
void*
a == b
%p
PW_DCHECK_PTR_NE
void*
a != b
%p
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_LE
float
a <= b
%f
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_LT
float
a < b
%f
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_GE
float
a >= b
%f
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_GT
float
a > b
%f
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_EQ
float
a == b
%f
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_NE
float
a != b
%f
Attention
For float, proper comparator checks which take floating point precision and ergo error accumulation into account are not provided on purpose as this comes with some complexity and requires application specific tolerances in terms of Units of Least Precision (ULP). Instead, carefully consider how floating point precision and error impact the data they are bounding and whether checks are appropriate.
-
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_NEAR(a, b, abs_tolerance)#
-
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_NEAR(a, b, abs_tolerance, format, ...)#
-
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_NEAR(a, b, abs_tolerance)#
-
PW_DCHECK_FLOAT_NEAR(a, b, abs_tolerance, format, ...)#
Asserts that
(a >= b - abs_tolerance) && (a <= b + abs_tolerance)
is true, wherea
,b
, andabs_tolerance
are converted tofloat
.Note
This also asserts that
abs_tolerance >= 0
.The
DCHECK
variants only run ifPW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG
is enabled; otherwise, the entire statement is removed (and the expression not evaluated).Example, with no message:
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_NEAR(cos(0.0f), 1, 0.001);
Example, with an included message and arguments:
PW_CHECK_FLOAT_NEAR(FirstOperation(), RedundantOperation(), 0.1, "System state=%s", SysState());
-
PW_CHECK_OK(status)#
-
PW_CHECK_OK(status, format, ...)#
-
PW_DCHECK_OK(status)#
-
PW_DCHECK_OK(status, format, ...)#
Assert that
status
evaluates topw::OkStatus()
(in C++) orPW_STATUS_OK
(in C). Optionally include a message with arguments to report.status
can be apw::Status
, or (in C++ only) any expression convertible topw::Status
, includingpw::StatusWithString
andpw::Result<T>
.The
DCHECK
variants only run ifPW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG
is defined; otherwise, the entire statement is removed (and the expression not evaluated).pw::Status operation_status = DoSomeOperation(); PW_CHECK_OK(operation_status); // Any expression that evaluates to a pw::Status or pw_Status works. PW_CHECK_OK(DoTheThing(), "System state: %s", SystemState()); // pw::Result<T> works. pw::Result<int> result = GetSomething(); PW_CHECK_OK(result); // C works too. pw_Status c_status = DoMoreThings(); PW_CHECK_OK(c_status, "System state: %s", SystemState());
Note
Using
PW_CHECK_OK(status)
instead ofPW_CHECK(status == OkStatus())
enables displaying an error message with a string version of the error code; for examplestatus == RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED
instead ofstatus == 5
.
%
in conditions#
PW_CHECK
conditions cannot contain the %
character (e.g. from the
modulus operator), since it may be interpreted as a printf-style format
specifier. Some backends (pw_assert_tokenized in particular) may
include the condition in the format string as a size optimization.
Unintentionally introducing an extra %-style argument could lead to problems, so
pw_assert
prevents this.
Using a % in a PW_CHECK
condition causes errors like the following:
../pw_assert/public/pw_assert/internal/check_impl.h:237:7: note: expanded from macro '_PW_CHECK_BINARY_ARG_HANDLER'
237 | arg_a_str arg_b_str); /* cannot use '%' here; call mod via a function */ \
To avoid errors like this, do not use %
in PW_CHECK
conditions. Modulus
can be moved to a separate statement outside of the PW_CHECK
or invoked via
a function or std::modulus.
This restriction may be removed in the future (b/235149326)
Assert API#
The normal PW_CHECK_*
and PW_DCHECK_*
family of macros are intended to
provide rich debug information, like the file, line number, value of operands
in boolean comparisons, and more. However, this comes at a cost: these macros
depend directly on the backend headers, and may perform complicated call-site
transformations like tokenization.
There are several issues with the normal PW_CHECK_*
suite of macros:
PW_CHECK_*
in headers can cause ODR violations in the case of tokenized asserts, due to differing module choices.PW_CHECK_*
is not constexpr-safe.PW_CHECK_*
can cause code bloat with some backends; this is the tradeoff to get rich assert information.PW_CHECK_*
can trigger circular dependencies when asserts are used from low-level contexts, like in<span>
.
PW_ASSERT solves all of the above problems: No risk of ODR violations, are constexpr safe, and have a tiny call site footprint; and there is no header dependency on the backend preventing circular include issues. However, there are no format messages, no captured line number, no captured file, no captured expression, or anything other than a binary indication of failure.
Example#
// This example demonstrates asserting in a header.
#include "pw_assert/assert.h"
class InlinedSubsystem {
public:
void DoSomething() {
// GOOD: No problem; PW_ASSERT is fine to inline and place in a header.
PW_ASSERT(IsEnabled());
}
void DoSomethingElse() {
// BAD: Generally avoid using PW_DCHECK() or PW_CHECK in headers. If you
// want rich asserts or logs, move the function into the .cc file, and
// then use PW_CHECK there.
PW_DCHECK(IsEnabled()); // DON'T DO THIS
}
};
PW_ASSERT API Reference#
-
PW_ASSERT(condition)#
A header- and constexpr-safe version of
PW_CHECK()
.If the given condition is false, crash the system. Otherwise, do nothing. The condition is guaranteed to be evaluated. This assert implementation is guaranteed to be constexpr-safe.
-
PW_DASSERT(condition)#
A header- and constexpr-safe version of
PW_DCHECK()
.Same as
PW_ASSERT()
, except that ifPW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG == 0
, the assert is disabled and condition is not evaluated.
-
PW_ASSERT_OK(expression)#
A header- and constexpr-safe version of
PW_CHECK_OK()
.If the given expression is not OK, crash the system. Otherwise, do nothing. The condition is guarenteed to be evaluated.
Attention
Unlike the PW_CHECK_*()
suite of macros, PW_ASSERT()
and
PW_DASSERT()
capture no rich information like line numbers, the file,
expression arguments, or the stringified expression. Use these macros only
when absolutely necessary—in headers, constexpr contexts, or in rare cases
where the call site overhead of a full PW_CHECK must be avoided.
Use PW_CHECK_*()
whenever possible.
PW_ASSERT API Backend#
The PW_ASSERT
API ultimately calls the C function
pw_assert_HandleFailure()
, which must be provided by the pw_assert
backend. The pw_assert_HandleFailure()
function must not return.
Avoiding Circular Dependencies With PW_ASSERT
#
Because asserts are so widely used, including in low-level libraries, it is
common for the pw_assert
backend to cause circular dependencies. Because of
this, assert backends may avoid declaring explicit dependencies, instead relying
on include paths to access header files.
GN#
In GN, the pw_assert
backend’s full implementation with true dependencies is
made available through the $dir_pw_assert:impl
group. When
pw_assert_BACKEND
is set, $dir_pw_assert:impl
must be listed in the
pw_build_LINK_DEPS
variable. See Link-only deps.
In the pw_assert
, the backend’s full implementation is placed in the
$pw_assert_BACKEND.impl
target. $dir_pw_assert:impl
depends on this
backend target. The $pw_assert_BACKEND.impl
target may be an empty group if
the backend target can use its dependencies directly without causing circular
dependencies.
In order to break dependency cycles, the pw_assert_BACKEND
target may need
to directly provide dependencies through include paths only, rather than GN
public_deps
. In this case, GN header checking can be disabled with
check_includes = false
.
Bazel#
In Bazel, assert backends may break dependency cycles by placing the full
implementation in an impl
target, like //pw_assert_basic:impl
or
//pw_assert_tokenized:impl
. The //pw_assert:backend_impl
label flag
should be set to the impl
target required by the assert backend used by the
platform.
You must add a dependency on the @pigweed//pw_assert:backend_impl
target to
any binary using pw_assert
.
See Libraries required at linktime for a general discussion of cyclic dependencies in low-level libraries in Bazel.
Backend API#
The backend controls what to do in the case of an assertion failure. In the most basic cases, the backend could display the assertion failure on something like sys_io and halt in a while loop waiting for a debugger. In other cases, the backend could store crash details like the current thread’s stack to flash.
This facade module (pw_assert
) does not provide a backend. See
pw_assert_basic for a basic implementation.
Attention
The facade macros (PW_CRASH
and related) are expected to behave like they
have the [[noreturn]]
attribute set. This implies that the backend handler
functions, PW_HANDLE_*
defined by the backend, must not return.
In other words, the device must reboot.
The backend must provide the header
pw_assert_backend/check_backend.h
and that header must define the following macros:
-
PW_HANDLE_CRASH(message, ...)#
Trigger a system crash or halt, and if possible, deliver the specified message and arguments to the user or developer.
-
PW_HANDLE_ASSERT_FAILURE(condition_str, message, ...)#
Trigger a system crash or halt, and if possible, deliver the condition string (indicating what expression was false) and the message with format arguments, to the user or developer.
This macro is invoked from the
PW_CHECK
facade macro if condition is false.
-
PW_HANDLE_ASSERT_BINARY_COMPARE_FAILURE(a_str, a_val, op_str, b_str, b_val, type_fmt, message, ...)#
Trigger a system crash or halt for a failed binary comparison assert (e.g. any of the
PW_CHECK_<type>_<op>
macros). The handler should combine the assert components into a useful message for the user; though in some cases this may not be possible.Consider the following example:
int temp = 16; int max_temp = 15; PW_CHECK_INT_LE(temp, MAX_TEMP, "Got too hot; state: %s", GetSystemState());
In this block, the assert will trigger, which will cause the facade to invoke the handler macro. Below is the meaning of the arguments, referencing to the example:
a_str
- Stringified first operand. In the example:"temp"
.a_val
- The value of the first operand. In the example:16
.op_str
- The string version of the operator. In the example: “<=”.b_str
- Stringified second operand. In the example:"max_temp"
.b_val
- The value of the second operand. In the example:15
.type_fmt
- The format code for the type. In the example:"%d"
.message, ...
- A formatted message to go with the assert. In the example:"Got too hot; state: %s", "ON_FIRE"
.
Tip
See pw_assert_basic for one way to combine these arguments into a meaningful error message.
Additionally, the backend must provide a link-time function for the
PW_ASSERT
assert handler. This does not need to appear in the backend
header, but instead is in a .cc
file.
-
pw_assert_HandleFailure()#
Handle a low-level crash. This crash entry happens through
pw_assert/assert.h
. In this crash handler, there is no access to line, file, expression, or other rich assert information. Backends should do something reasonable in this case; typically, capturing the stack is useful.
Backend Build Targets#
In GN, the backend must provide a pw_assert.impl
build target in the same
directory as the backend target. If the main backend target’s dependencies would
cause dependency cycles, the actual backend implementation with its full
dependencies is placed in the pw_assert.impl
target. If this is not
necessary, pw_assert.impl
can be an empty group. Circular dependencies are a
common problem with pw_assert
because it is so widely used. See
Avoiding Circular Dependencies With PW_ASSERT.
Macro-based PW_ASSERT()/PW_DASSERT() backend#
The pw_assert API is being re-assessed to provide more helpful information in
contexts where PW_CHECK_*()
macros cannot be used. A first step towards this
is providing a macro-based backend API for the PW_ASSERT()
and
PW_DASSERT()
macros.
Warning
This part of pw_assert
’s API is transitional, and any project-specific
reliance on any of the API mentioned here will likely experience breakages.
In particular, PW_ASSERT_HANDLE_FAILURE
and PW_HANDLE_ASSERT_FAILURE
are extremely confusingly similar and are NOT interchangeable.
A macro-based backend for the PW_ASSERT()
macros must provide the following
macro in a header at pw_assert_backend/assert_backend.h
.
-
PW_ASSERT_HANDLE_FAILURE(expression)#
Handle a low-level crash. This crash entry happens through
pw_assert/assert.h
. Backends must ensure their implementation is safe for usage in headers, constexpr contexts, and templates. This macro should expand to an expression that does not return.
Similar to the PW_CHECK_*()
facade, the header backend that provides an
expansion for the PW_ASSERT_HANDLE_FAILURE()
macro can be controlled in the
GN build using the pw_assert_LITE_BACKEND
build argument. In addition to
the header-based target at ${pw_assert_LITE_BACKEND}
, a source set at
${pw_assert_LITE_BACKEND}.impl
is also required as a way to reduce the
impact of circular dependencies.
Frequently Asked Questions#
When should DCHECK_* be used instead of CHECK_* and vice versa?#
There is no hard and fast rule for when to use one or the other.
In theory, DCHECK_*
macros should never be used and all the asserts should
remain active in production. In practice, assert statements come at a binary
size and runtime cost, even when using extensions like a tokenized assert
backend that strips the stringified assert expression from the binary. Each
assert is at least a branch with a function call; depending on the assert
backend, that function call may take several arguments (like the message, the
file line number, the module, etc). These function calls can take 10-20 bytes
or more of ROM each. Thus, there is a balance to be struct between DCHECK_*
and CHECK_*
.
Pigweed uses these conventions to decide between CHECK_*
and DCHECK_*
:
Prefer to use CHECK_* at public API boundaries of modules, where an invalid value is a clear programmer bug. In certain cases use
DCHECK_*
to keep binary size small when in production; for example, in modules with a large public API surface, or modules with many inlined functions in headers.Avoid using CHECK_* macros in headers. It is still OK to use
CHECK_*
macros in headers, but carefully consider the cost, since inlined use of theCHECK_*
macros in headers will expand to the full assert cost for every translation unit that includes the header and calls the function with theCHECK_*
instance.DCHECK_*
macros are are better, but even they come at a cost, since it is preferable to be able to compile a binary in debug mode for as long as possible on the road to production.Prefer to use DCHECK_* variants for internal asserts that attempt to catch module-author level programming errors. For example, use DCHECKs to verify internal function preconditions, or other invariants that should always be true but will likely never fire in production. In some cases using
CHECK_*
macros for internal consistency checking can make sense, if the runtime cost is low and there are only a couple of instances.
Tip
Do not return error status codes for obvious API misuse
Returning an error code may mask the earliest sign of a bug because
notifying the developer of the problem depends on correct propagation of the
error to upper levels of the system. Instead, prefer to use the CHECK_*
or DCHECK_*
macros to ensure a prompt termination and warning to the
developer.
Error status codes should be reserved for system misbehaviour or expected
exceptional cases, like a sensor is not yet ready, or a storage subsystem
is full when writing. Doing CHECK_*
assertions in those cases would be a
mistake; so use error codes in those cases instead.
How should objects be asserted against or compared?#
Unfortunately, there is no native mechanism for this, and instead the way to
assert object states or comparisons is with the normal PW_CHECK_*
macros
that operate on booleans, ints, and floats.
This is due to the requirement of supporting C and also tokenization. It may be
possible support rich object comparisons by defining a convention for
stringifying objects; however, this hasn’t been added yet. Additionally, such a
mechanism would not work well with tokenization. In particular, it would
require runtime stringifying arguments and rendering them with %s
, which
leads to binary bloat even with tokenization. So it is likely that a rich
object assert API won’t be added.
Why was the assert facade designed this way?#
The Pigweed assert API was designed taking into account the needs of several past projects the team members were involved with. Based on those experiences, the following were key requirements for the API:
C compatibility - Since asserts are typically invoked from arbitrary contexts, including from vendor or third party code, the assert system must have a C-compatible API. Some API functions working only in C++ is acceptable, as long as the key functions work in C.
Capturing both expressions and values - Since asserts can trigger in ways that are not repeatable, it is important to capture rich diagnostic information to help identifying the root cause of the fault. For asserts, this means including the failing expression text, and optionally also capturing failing expression values. For example, instead of capturing an error with the expression (
x < y
), capturing an error with the expression and values(x < y, with x = 10, y = 0
).Tokenization compatible - It’s important that the assert expressions support tokenization; both the expression itself (e.g.
a < b
) and the message attached to the expression. For example:PW_CHECK(ItWorks(), "Ruh roh: %d", some_int)
.Customizable assert handling - Most products need to support custom handling of asserts. In some cases, an assert might trigger printing out details to a UART; in other cases, it might trigger saving a log entry to flash. The assert system must support this customization.
The combination of #1, #2, and #3 led to the structure of the API. In
particular, the need to support tokenized asserts and the need to support
capturing values led to the choice of having PW_CHECK_INT_LE(a, b)
instead
of PW_CHECK(a <= b)
. Needing to support tokenization is what drove the
facade & backend arrangement, since the backend must provide the raw macros for
asserting in that case, rather than terminating at a C-style API.
Why isn’t there a PW_CHECK_LE
? Why is the type (e.g. INT
) needed?#
The problem with asserts like PW_CHECK_LE(a, b)
instead of
PW_CHECK_INT_LE(a, b)
or PW_CHECK_FLOAT_EXACT_LE(a, b)
is that to
capture the arguments with the tokenizer, we need to know the types. Using the
preprocessor, it is impossible to dispatch based on the types of a
and
b
, so unfortunately having a separate macro for each of the types commonly
asserted on is necessary.
Module Configuration Options#
The following configurations can be adjusted via compile-time configuration of this module, see the module documentation for more details.
-
PW_ASSERT_ENABLE_DEBUG#
Controls whether
DCHECK
andDASSERT
are enabled.This defaults to being disabled if
NDEBUG
is defined, else it is enabled by default.
-
PW_ASSERT_CAPTURE_VALUES#
Controls whether the evaluated values of a CHECK statement are captured as arguments to the final string. Disabling this will reduce code size at CHECK callsites, but slightly reduces debugability.
This defaults to enabled.
Compatibility#
The facade is compatible with both C and C++.
C Standard Library assert Replacement#
An optional replacement of the C standard Library’s assert macro is provided through the libc_assert target which fully implements replacement assert.h and cassert headers using PW_ASSERT. While this is effective for porting external code to microcontrollers, we do not advise embedded projects use the assert macro unless absolutely necessary.
Roadmap & Status#
The Pigweed assert subsystem consiststs of several modules that work in
coordination. This module is the facade (API), then a number of backends are
available to handle assert failures. Products can also define their own
backends. In some cases, the backends will have backends (like
pw_log_tokenized
).
Below is a brief summary of what modules are ready for use:
Available Assert Backends#
See pw_assert backends.
Missing Functionality#
Stack traces - Pigweed doesn’t have a reliable stack walker, which makes displaying a stack trace on crash harder. We plan to add this eventually.
Snapshot integration - Pigweed doesn’t yet have a rich system state capture system that can capture state like number of tasks, available memory, and so on. Snapshot facilities are the obvious ones to run inside an assert handler. It’ll happen someday.