Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: optimizing assert
Message-ID: <2348@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 88 20:20:09 GMT
References: <11295@brl-adm.ARPA> <2300@haddock.ISC.COM> <2662@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 21

In article <2662@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <2300@haddock.ISC.COM> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>>If the expression has side effects, I think it's clear that the user does
>>want them to be evaluated.
>
>This is fine as long as the assert expression calls no functions.  ...
>[But what about] assert(pow(x, 2) < y)

Good point.  I was thinking in terms of functions with desirable side effects,
in particular things like assert(getchar() == '\n') .

Okay, world.  Do you use <assert.h>?  Do you have any/much existing code that
uses benign function calls within assert?  Is it worth "breaking"% that code
in exchange for the added benefit of being able to use arbitrary expressions
with impunity?

Send mail; I'll post a summary.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
%The proposed change wouldn't invalidate such a program, but it would probably
cause extra code to be generated/executed.