On 7/31/2014 4:28 AM, David Bregman wrote:
Sigh. Of course you can assume the condition after a runtime check has been
inserted. You just showed that
assert(x); assume(x);
is semantically equivalent to
assert(x);
as long as the runtime check is not elided. (no -release)
No. I showed that you cannot have an assert without the assume. That makes them
equivalent that direction.
For the other direction, adding in a runtime check for an assume is going to be
expected of an implementation. And, in fact, since the runtime check won't
change the semantics if the assume is correct, they are equivalent.
I.e. for practical purposes, they are the same thing. You can't have one without
the other.
The code generated by one will be different than the code generated by the
other, that is because they are functionally different. This is really
indisputable..
Oh, I dispute it very much!
But you still want to assert to become assume in release mode? How
will you handle the safety issue?
I don't know yet.
So what?
It came up in the thread about assume vs assert. I assumed (!) it mattered to
you.
