Re: [PATCH] (int)0 = 0 & variations

Stefan Monnier (monnier+lists/linux/kernel/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu)
28 Jun 1999 18:26:47 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Zach Brown: "Re: FTP benchmark proposal"
Previous message: Wanderer: "Re: [RFC] File flags handling - proposal for API."

>>>>> "Jamie" == Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Assertions should not have side effects -- if you write them right, GCC
> will optimise away the expression anyway. (Ignore strings for the moment).

If they have no side-effect, then there is no point in evaluating them with
NDEBUG set. Please, let's not try to hide bugs.

Stefan

PS: if they do have side-effects, then they are bogus.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Zach Brown: "Re: FTP benchmark proposal"
Previous message: Wanderer: "Re: [RFC] File flags handling - proposal for API."

Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations

Re: [PATCH] (int)0 = 0 & variations