Using Asserts in Embedded Systems

The use of asserts is one of the best ways to find bugs, unintended behavior, programmatic errors, and to catch when systems are no longer 100% functional and need to be reset to recover. If instrumented correctly, an assert can give a developer context about when and where in the code an issue took place. Despite the numerous benefits, the practice of using asserts in firmware is not common or agreed upon.

By using asserts proactively in embedded systems on debug and production builds, developers can both prevent more bugs before shipping and quickly surface and fix them after shipping. Proper assert handling is also the safest way to handle issues and undefined behavior that occur in production. In this post, we’ll go over best practices with asserts, when to use asserts, and then come up with a production ready custom assert implementation for an ARM Cortex-M device, all while keeping the code size usage to a minimum.

Why you shouldn’t compile asserts out in production builds Many of the popular embedded platforms have options to compile out error handling and assertions. In our opinion, this is a mistake. In the event of inconsistent behavior or memory corruption, crashing the device is often the safest thing you could do. Embedded systems can often reboot quickly, getting the system back to a known good state. Over time, it will also be noticed and provide valuable feedback back to your engineering teams. The alternative is worse: the system could behave in unpredictable way and perform poorly, lose customer information, …etc.

Article Disclaimers

  • This post is about runtime asserting, not compile time asserting, such as static_assert.
  • This post is targeting the ever-growing number of non-safety-critical embedded systems, such as consumer electronics, Class 1 medical devices, home automation devices, etc.
  • The above types of embedded systems are primarily constrained by memory and code space limitations, so the information below takes this into account.
  • The examples below are implemented for the ARM Cortex-M series of MCUs. Many of the concepts can be generalized to other architectures.

Making the Most of Asserts

To get the most value from asserting, it is important to set up some postmortem infrastructure. When an assert takes place (or even a system fault), there is a lot of context and data one can capture to help debug these issues. These include but are not limited to:

  • the file and line number the assert took place at
  • the registers at the time of assert
  • values or function pointers on the stack, to help reassemble the backtrace.
  • the logs that took place before the assert and possibly after the reboot took place
  • for those using MyNewt1, ESP-IDF2, or have Memfault3 integrated, a coredump can be captured at the time of the assert, which will provide a full dump of system memory and registers, allowing one to clearly see why and how the system triggered an assert

With all of the above, especially coredumps, it becomes advantageous to add as many asserts to the system as possible, especially for capturing those 1 in 10,000 hour bugs. This allows developers to quickly track down and investigate bugs affecting users in the field, all without having to reproduce the issue on a development board.

Why You Should Assert

  • Asserts generally occur while the system is still in control (e.g. not in a HardFault, etc). This means that the system can safely perform cleanup operations and record debugging information.
  • Developers connected to a debugger very quickly find programmatic mistakes and invalid usage of API’s.
  • Asserting function arguments removes the need to check for argument validity and error handling code in upper layers, which may in turn reduce code size.
  • Good placement of asserts can reduce chances of exceptions by catching out-of-bounds accesses, invalid pointer dereferences, invalid state machine transitions, and nonsensical operations (like a malloc of 12MB on a 64kB MCU).
  • Asserts can help developers quickly understand assumptions made by a certain piece of code (e.g. a module that takes a uint8_t but requires a value within the range of 1 to 64).

Common Usages of Asserts

Many assertions are application-specific, but we’ve got a few rules of thumbs on when you should use assertions. Below are some examples of when using assertions is a good idea.

When malloc shouldn’t fail

Dynamic memory allocation is common in embedded systems, especially in today’s Internet connected consumer electronics. These devices need to be able to receive an influx of packets, use large HTTP buffers, and possibly load assets or fonts into RAM for a user interface. Keeping around statically allocated buffers for all of these functions would be wasteful, especially for the devices that measure RAM in kilobytes. In these devices, dynamic memory allocation is a must.

There are also places where malloc could fail, and where it shouldn’t.

For example, let’s give an example of dynamically allocated mutexes where malloc should not fail.

Mutex *mutex_create(void) {
  Mutex *mutex = malloc(sizeof(Mutex));

  return mutex;

This malloc should never fail. If it did, then it would mean the system is out of heap space. If we didn’t assert here, then the system would risk using an unprotected resource.

On the contrary, there are cases where it is perfectly fine for malloc to fail, such as when a surge of packets are received and the heap becomes exhausted. The system should process the packets, free the memory, and then ask for more data.

Invalid arguments passed into function

Argument checking is one of the best (and easiest) places to assert.

We can check for NULL pointers

void handle_event(Event *evt) {

or check sizes of buffers

void read_packet(void *buf, size_t buf_len) {
  ASSERT(buf_len >= sizeof(Packet));

or prevent silly operations.

void *my_malloc(uint32_t n) {
  ASSERT(n < 131072);

All of the above examples above are bugs introduced by a developer and they likely shouldn’t be handled gracefully. The alternative is to return an error code, and burden the developer with finding out exactly where in the call stack a particular argument check filed.

It’s not common to see asserts on arguments in vendor and library code, since they aren’t in the business of crashing devices, but it is sometimes configurable on mature software. An example of configurable asserting in a library can be found in FreeRTOS, e.g. xTaskCreateStatic4. In this function, configASSERT is used to check for non-null pointers, and if configASSERT is configured to a no-op, the code will still check those values later in the function and return an error if they are invalid.

When undefined behavior is imminent

typedef enum {
} EventType;

void handle_event(Event *evt) {
  switch (evt->type) {
    case EventType_A:
      // something
    case EventType_B:
      // something
      // shouldn't ever get here.
      // something is corrupted

If we want to make this even more understandable for future developers who come across this, something like the following can also be done.

#define WTF ASSERT(0)

void handle_event(Event *evt) {
  switch (evt->type) {

This makes it pretty obvious that anything that falls through to the default: case is undefined behavior.

RTOS API functions fail

Another great place to assert is when you expect certain system functions to succeed, and if they don’t, the system is in a bad state. Below is a snippet where we assert if a mutex wasn’t locked after a few seconds, which likely means there is a deadlock somewhere else.

int rv = xSemaphoreTake(s_mutex, sec_to_ticks(5));
ASSERT(rv == pdTRUE);

WARNING: Do not place code which performs operations within an ASSERT, such as ASSERT(pdTRUE == xSemaphoreTake(s_mutex, 0)). Aside from it being bad practice, if a developer were to disable asserts, this would cause undefined behavior.

When Not to Assert

There are places where it is advised to assert. On the contrary, there are places where it’s critical to not assert.

  • Avoid asserting on boot up sequences. This is the most common way to introduce reboot loops.
  • Don’t assert on operations that depend on the hardware behaving appropriately. If a sensor says it will return a value between 0-100, it’s probably best not assert when it’s above 100, because you can never trust today’s cheap hardware.
  • Don’t assert on the contents of data read from persistent storage, unless it’s guaranteed to be valid. The data read from flash or a filesystem could be corrupted.
  • If it is very likely the system will recover in a few moments, it might be best to not assert. e.g. when running out of heap or byte pool allocations during a spike in network packets.

Custom Assert Implementation Examples

It’s now time to start asserting ourselves. The examples provided below progress from a naive solution to the best one I’ve seen and used to date, with each becoming more expressive while also using less (precious) code space.

NOTE: All of these implementations will behave similarly if a debugger is attached. The goal of the exercise is to improve upon asserts that are hit while a debugger is not attached and all we have is a logging system.

The code starts out in prv_main, and will call one of two functions, prv_main_path_A, or prv_main_path_B, depending on a randomly generated boolean variable. Both of these functions will then call either assert_path_A or assert_path_B, which gives us four unique paths our code can take on boot.

The example is a bit contrived, but if we had to do a postmortem analysis of this assert, we’d like to know the path the system took before the assert. Thankfully, we can build an assert implementation that does just this.


For this setup we will use:

  • a nRF52840-DK5 (ARM Cortex-M4F) as our development board
  • SEGGER JLinkGDBServer6 as our GDB Server.
  • GCC 8.3.1 / GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain as our compiler7
  • GNU make as our build system

All the code can be found on the Interrupt Github page with more details in the README in the directory linked.

Compiling the code and launching it with GDB

# Compile the first assert implementation
Compiling main.c
Compiling startup.c
Compiling freertos_kernel/tasks.c
Compiling freertos_kernel/queue.c
Compiling freertos_kernel/list.c
Compiling freertos_kernel/timers.c
Compiling freertos_kernel/portable/GCC/ARM_CM4F/port.c
Compiling freertos_kernel/portable/MemMang/heap_1.c
Compiling impls/assert1.c
Linking library
Generated build/nrf52.elf

# In one terminal, start a GDB Server
$ JLinkGDBServer  -if swd -device nRF52840_xxAA
SEGGER J-Link GDB Server V6.52a Command Line Version

# Flash the code on the NRF52 and start gdb
$ arm-none-eabi-gdb-py --eval-command="target remote localhost:2331" --ex="mon reset" --ex="load"
--ex="mon reset" --se=build/nrf52.elf
GNU gdb (GNU Tools for Arm Embedded Processors 8-2019-q3-update)
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Resetting target
Loading section .interrupts, size 0x40 lma 0x0
Loading section .text, size 0x194d lma 0x40
Loading section .data, size 0x4 lma 0x1990
Start address 0x40, load size 6545
Transfer rate: 2130 KB/sec, 2181 bytes/write.
Resetting target

Assert metadata structure

To help with the usability of our implementation, both while connected to a debugger and when logging to persistent storage, we’ll define a structure to store information about the assert.

// Convenience structure that we can store items in
//  to print out later when we add logging.
typedef struct sAssertInfo {
  uint32_t pc;
  uint32_t lr;
  uint32_t line;
  // I don't suggest actually using these, but they
  // are included for the examples.
  char file[256];
  char msg[256];
} sAssertInfo;

extern sAssertInfo g_assert_info;

This provides fields for the ARM program counter and link register, the file and line number, and the message if any provided to the assert. In our example assert implementations, we’ll fill in the fields we can access.

Standard Library Assert (#1)

The initial approach is to use what already exists within the standard library, assert(expr). This requires us to implement the function __assert_func.

void __assert_func(const char *file,
                   int line,
                   const char *func,
                   const char *failedexpr) {
  snprintf(g_assert_info.msg, sizeof(g_assert_info.msg),
           "ASSERT: %s at %s\n", failedexpr, func);
  strncpy(g_assert_info.file, file, sizeof(g_assert_info.file));
  g_assert_info.line = line;

  __asm("bkpt 1");

void assert_path_A(void) {

With the stdlib.h implementation of assert.h, the filepath, line number, function name, and the actual expression being tested are all passed into the assert handler.

If code space is of any concern to you, I would advise never to use this approach.

Error Message Assert (#2)

The next simplest approach is to pass in a unique string to the assert which provides context for the developer about what the error was and where. We can then search for this error message within the codebase and figure out at which location the assert took place at.

#define MY_ASSERT(expr, msg) \
  do {                                          \
    if (!(expr)) {                              \
      my_assert(msg);                           \
    }                                           \
  } while (0)
void my_assert(const char *msg) {
  strncpy(g_assert_info.msg, msg, sizeof(g_assert_info.msg));
  __asm("bkpt 2");

void assert_path_A(void) {
  MY_ASSERT(0, "Assert in `assert2.c::assert_path_A`");

The drawback of this method is that every message is stored in the resulting binary, and this takes up precious code space.

Below, we use objdump to view the resulting strings in the binary. We can see that each assert string takes up ~32 bytes.

$ arm-none-eabi-objdump -s -j '.text' build/nrf52.elf
 2710 63000000 41737365 72742069 6e206061  c...Assert in `a
 2720 73736572 74322e63 3a3a7477 6f5f7472  ssert2.c::two_tr
 2730 75650000 41737365 72742069 6e206061  ue..Assert in `a
 2740 73736572 74322e63 3a3a7477 6f5f6661  ssert2.c::two_fa
 2750 6c736500                             lse.

The longer the string, the more codespace that is used, so this would actually discourage the use of asserts, which is not ideal.

Extracted Information

We can look up the file and line number of the assert hit assuming all assert strings are unique.

Filepath and Line Number Assert (#3)

The most common approach I’ve seen for asserts is to include the filepath and line number into the assert macro, using the __FILE__ and __LINE__ defines provided by the compiler.

#define MY_ASSERT(expr) \
  do {                                          \
    if (!(expr)) {                              \
      my_assert(__FILE__, __LINE__);            \
    }                                           \
  } while (0)
void my_assert(const char *file, uint32_t line) {
  strncpy(g_assert_info.file, file, sizeof(g_assert_info.file));
  g_assert_info.line = line;
  __asm("bkpt 3");

void assert_path_A(void) {

This approach works very well and gives the developer exactly the amount of context required to find the issue. However, the __FILE__ macro includes the entire filepath of the file, and those can get quite lengthy. In my local build, __FILE__ is 77 bytes!

(gdb) p __FILE__
$1 = "/Users/tyler/dev/memfault/interrupt/example/debugging-asserts/impls/assert3.c"

Thankfully, the __FILE__ string table entry is reused between asserts in the same file, so the code size bloat primarily depends on the number of files with asserts within them. However, most projects have a non-trivial number of files.

As a rough estimate, if we have asserts in 50 different files, this results in ~50 bytes per filepath * 50 files => 2500 bytes, which is an enormous amount of bloat just for storing filepaths!

For this reason, many RTOS implementations that include an ASSERT macro can optionally leave these strings out of the build, such as Zephyr8 and MyNewt9.

NOTE: One simple code size (and sanity) optimization is to normalize these __FILE__ paths to the root of the project directory. This will result in a build path that removes the /Users/tyler/dev/memfault/... portion. An added benefit of this is that all all machines should produce builds with the same filepaths, resulting in more similarly sized builds.

Extracted Information

We know the file and line number of the assert hit.

Filename and Line Number Assert (#4)

Since the filepaths can be lengthy and waste code space, one solution is to use only the filename itself, e.g. assert3.c, instead of the filepath, e.g. /Users/tyler/.../assert3.c.

This can be accomplished by adding a define called __FILENAME__ and using this in the assert implementation instead. In the Makefile or similar build system, this macro is defined in line with the compilation rule.

  $(Q) arm-none-eabi-gcc $(DEP_CFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(INCLUDE_PATHS) \
      -D__FILENAME__=\"$(notdir $<)\" \
      -c -o $@ $<

In the assert header, we can now use __FILENAME__ instead of __FILE__.

#define MY_ASSERT(expr)                   \
  do {                                    \
    if (!(expr)) {                        \
      my_assert(__FILENAME__, __LINE__);  \
    }                                     \
  } while (0)

With this change, we reduce our file string from /Users/tyler/dev/memfault/interrupt/example/debugging-asserts/impls/assert3.c to assert3.c, resulting in 68 bytes of code space savings per file which contains an assert.

$ arm-none-eabi-objdump -s -j '.text' build/nrf52.elf
26b0 61737365 7274342e 6300               assert4.c

Extracted Information

We know the file and line number of the assert hit.

Register Values Only Assert (#5)

The problem with all of the above assert implementations is that our code size is bloated due to storing string filenames, and also that our code size can change depending on how we name the files in our project. This encourages poor naming practices, as well as produces unexpected build sizes.

My favorite way to implement asserts is to record both the program counter and the link register within the macro. This provides the following benefits:

  • Each assert consumes a fixed number of bytes, no matter the filepath, filename, or number of asserts per file.
  • By capturing both the PC and LR, we can get an extra frame in our ‘backtrace’.
  • If we really wanted to micro-optimize, we can choose not to record the LR and save a couple more bytes.

Below we define two macros, GET_LR() and GET_PC(), to retrieve the registers pc and lr respectively.

#define GET_LR() __builtin_return_address(0)
// This is ARM and GCC specific syntax
#define GET_PC(_a) __asm volatile ("mov %0, pc" : "=r" (_a))

#define MY_ASSERT_RECORD()     \
  do {                         \
    void *pc;                  \
    GET_PC(pc);                \
    const void *lr = GET_LR(); \
    my_assert(pc, lr);         \
  } while (0)

#define MY_ASSERT(exp)         \
  do {                         \
    if (!(exp)) {              \
      MY_ASSERT_RECORD();      \
    }                          \
  } while (0)

In our my_assert implementation, we then record the two register values in our struct. Since we aren’t storing the file or line number information directly in our firmware, we can also save RAM and flash space. This could allow us to store many more asserts in our logs!

void my_assert(uint32_t *pc, uint32_t *lr) {
  // File and line deliberately left empty
  g_assert_info.pc = (uint32_t)pc; = (uint32_t)lr;
  __asm("bkpt 5");

The drawback to this approach is that we’ll have to use addr2line or a similar tool to go from our register values to the file and line information, but this can be added to a simple script and used by the entire team with ease.

$ arm-elf-linux-addr2line --exe build/nrf52.elf 0x2250

NOTE: Compiler optimizations such as function inlining may result in different asserts being merged together, which will produce confusing results. One way to mitigate this is to also pass in the __LINE__ information to the assert to make every my_assert call unique.

Extracted Information

We can use addr2line on both the PC and LR to find the file and line number of the assert hit, as well as caller’s file and line number.

Code Size Differences

Why did we compile in FreeRTOS to our examples? Because we can now check out the differences in code sizes between our different assert implementations by hooking up our MY_ASSERT macro to the FreeRTOS configASSERT macro.

Below are the results for compiling with -O0 or -Os while only keeping in the FreeRTOS asserts (removing those from assert_path_A and assert_path_B)

Assert Impl # -Os CFLAG (B) Delta
None 17711  
#1 (Default) 43477 +25766
#3 19404 +1693
#4 18845 +1134
#5 18519 +808

As one can see, there are significant code size wins over the standard __FILE__ assert implementations used by the common embedded platforms by using the __FILENAME__ approach, or by capturing the PC/LR registers on assert.


We as embedded developers should be using every tool in the toolbox to help us and our teams ship rock solid code, firmware, and embedded products. Asserts are only one piece of this puzzle, and they need to be paired with solid debugging infrastructure such as logging, postmortem backtrace and coredump collection, and automated analysis of these diagnostics.

See anything you'd like to change? Submit a pull request or open an issue on our GitHub

Tyler Hoffman has worked on the embedded software teams at Pebble and Fitbit. He is now a founder at Memfault.