Re: Help with create_pipe_bidi

[Akim Demaille]

Le 6 sept. 2009 à 01:32, Joel E. Denny a écrit :

> > I feel uncomfortable with the fact that aver is silent, so I'd  
> > prefer that
> > aver == assert in !NDEBUG mode, and becomes the original aver  
> > implementation
> > otherwise.  Something like:
> >
> > /* <assert.h>'s assertions are heavyweight and can be disabled too
> >  easily, but deliver more information on failure.  So use aver.  See
> >  discussions at
> >  <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2006-01/msg00080.html 
> > >
> >  <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2006-09/msg00111.html 
> > >.
> >  */
> > #if defined NDEBUG
> > static inline void
> > aver (bool assertion)
> > {
> > if (! assertion)
> >   abort ();
> > }
> > #else
> > # include <assert.h>
> > # define aver assert
> > #endif
>
> So how useful would --disable-asserts be for Bison?  Is our goal to  
> hide
> these debugging messages from the end user but not really remove the
> run-time cost?  If not, then maybe aver should just implement assert
> without allowing NDEBUG to affect it.

I can understand the concerns of Paul wrt the space-footprint of  
assert, that's why I meant to twist the meaning of NDEBUG into  
"smaller foot-print".  I would make --disable-asserts equivalent to  
NDEBUG, so it would move from classical assert to our current aver.

We can also provide a three-state --disable-asserts:

- yes: fully blown assert,
- no: our current aver, same as NDEBUG,
- totally: completely remove the assertions.