On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:31:14 -0400, Christian Kamm
wrote:
>Max Samukha Wrote:
>> You have a point. With current dmd, you can include unittests in the
>> release build. So why not asserts? But I don't think it's a good
>> solution to force people who don't want asserts in a final product to
>> pre
Christian Kamm Wrote:
> LDC has the -enable-* and -disable-* command line options for asserts, array
> bounds
> checking, invariants and contracts to allow fine grained control over what is
> emitted and
> what isn't.
Ah, Jarrett had already pointed that out. Anyway, what I meant to say was th
Max Samukha Wrote:
> You have a point. With current dmd, you can include unittests in the
> release build. So why not asserts? But I don't think it's a good
> solution to force people who don't want asserts in a final product to
> prepend each and every assert with 'debug'. For assertions that shou
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:43:22 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
>Max Samukha:
>> Why would you want to leave asserts in a release build while they are
>> supposed to be used for debugging?
>
>If you look around on internet you will find lot of people that like to keep
>assertions in the final programs too
bearophile wrote:
Max Samukha:
Why would you want to leave asserts in a release build while they are
supposed to be used for debugging?
If you look around on internet you will find lot of people that like to keep
assertions in the final programs too.
Is DMD itself compiled with asserts left i
Max Samukha:
> Why would you want to leave asserts in a release build while they are
> supposed to be used for debugging?
If you look around on internet you will find lot of people that like to keep
assertions in the final programs too.
Is DMD itself compiled with asserts left inside? When DMD do
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:28:41 +0400, "Denis Koroskin"
<2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:46:37 +0400, Max Samukha wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:12:25 +0400, "Denis Koroskin"
>> <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:09:12 +0400, Qian Xu
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
Qian Xu Wrote:
> Release and Debug are two configuration sets.
>
> FEATURE | DEBUG | RELEASE
> ---+---+-
> assertion | |
> ---+---+-
> invariant | |
> ---+---+-
> debug symbols | |
> -
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:46:37 +0400, Max Samukha wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:12:25 +0400, "Denis Koroskin"
<2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:09:12 +0400, Qian Xu
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
No, they wont.
Is there any reason for that?
I dont know. I'd prefer to wr
Release and Debug are two configuration sets.
FEATURE | DEBUG | RELEASE
---+---+-
assertion | |
---+---+-
invariant | |
---+---+-
debug symbols | |
---+---+-
optimi
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Qian Xu wrote:
> Jason House wrote:
>
>> Qian Xu Wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> "invariant" is a great language feature of D. But nice thing costs.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to make it compiler switchable? Like "dmd
>>> --ignore-invariant" or "dmd --version=ignore-invar
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:12:25 +0400, "Denis Koroskin"
<2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:09:12 +0400, Qian Xu
>wrote:
>
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>
>>> No, they wont.
>>
>> Is there any reason for that?
>
>I dont know. I'd prefer to write
>
>> debug assert(foo == bar, "foo must
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:09:12 +0400, Qian Xu
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
No, they wont.
Is there any reason for that?
I dont know. I'd prefer to write
debug assert(foo == bar, "foo must be equal to bar");
if I'd like to turn them off in release mode.
Denis Koroskin wrote:
>
> No, they wont.
Is there any reason for that?
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:57:47 +0400, Qian Xu
wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Qian Xu Wrote:
Hi All,
"invariant" is a great language feature of D. But nice thing costs.
Is it possible to make it compiler switchable? Like "dmd
--ignore-invariant" or "dmd --version=ignore-invariant" It think it
Jason House wrote:
> Qian Xu Wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> "invariant" is a great language feature of D. But nice thing costs.
>>
>> Is it possible to make it compiler switchable? Like "dmd
>> --ignore-invariant" or "dmd --version=ignore-invariant" It think it will
>> be quite helpful to generate t
Qian Xu Wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> "invariant" is a great language feature of D. But nice thing costs.
>
> Is it possible to make it compiler switchable? Like "dmd --ignore-invariant"
> or "dmd --version=ignore-invariant" It think it will be quite helpful to
> generate test version and release versio
17 matches
Mail list logo
