constexpr DEBUG_ASSERT

[daschuer]

Replace the unused conditional assignment by plain if() to make our asserts usable in contsexpr

In case the assertion failed the compiler is already complaining that the assertion is no longer const, because QCritical is not const.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 1058111453

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+1.0e**-05%**) to 28.634%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 1057568566:	1.0e-05%
Covered Lines:	20099
Relevant Lines:	70193

---

💛 - Coveralls

[daschuer]

Oh, it turns out we can remove the lambdas completely.
Done.

[uklotzde]

How about replacing (cond) with static_cast<bool>(cond) as suggested by @Holzhaus?

[daschuer]

Done

[daschuer]

Unfortunately the error message is a bit weird in case of a compile time assert:

home/sperry/workspace/2.3/src/mixxxapplication.cpp: In constructor ‘MixxxApplication::MixxxApplication(int&, char**)’:
/home/sperry/workspace/2.3/src/mixxxapplication.cpp:79:28:   in ‘constexpr’ expansion of ‘{anonymous}::makei(0)’
/home/sperry/workspace/2.3/src/util/assert.h:57:27: error: call to non-‘constexpr’ function ‘void mixxx_debug_assert(const char*, const char*, int, const char*)’
   57 |         mixxx_debug_assert(#cond, __FILE__, __LINE__, ASSERT_FUNCTION); \
      |         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/sperry/workspace/2.3/src/mixxxapplication.cpp:60:5: note: in expansion of macro ‘DEBUG_ASSERT’
   60 |     DEBUG_ASSERT(i);
      |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~

that is also the case with the std assert(), not our fault

[uklotzde]

@Holzhaus Merge?

[Holzhaus]

Didn't test this yet, but feel free to merge if you did. Otherwise I can have a look in the next days.

[uklotzde]

LGTM