Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: use abort() not ASSERT(0) for impossible switch case

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:32:02PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The original reason for the expletive below has been lost
> in the mists of time, but at any rate, ASSERT() goes away in
> libxfs, and this leads static analysis checkers to believe that
> XFS_BTNUM_MAX is possible, and that we might overflow an array
> later when using it as an index.
> 
> We can shut this up and mark it as truly impossible with abort().

This won't work in kernel space, and we'd like to keep this file in sync.