www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - assert(false) with -unittest

reply Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de> writes:
Hi,

assert(false) should generate the hlt instruction in release mode.
I.e.
assert.d:
void hlt() {
	assert(false);
}

$ dmd -release -c assert.d
$ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt

works. But

$ dmd -unittest -release -c assert.d
$ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt

fails.

Can't one have hlt together with unittest? Is it a bug in the compiler
or correct behavior?

Jens
Nov 16 2010
next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Jens Mueller (jens.k.mueller gmx.de)'s article

 Hi,
 assert(false) should generate the hlt instruction in release mode.
 I.e.
 assert.d:
 void hlt() {
 	assert(false);
 }
 $ dmd -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 works. But
 $ dmd -unittest -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 fails.
 Can't one have hlt together with unittest? Is it a bug in the compiler
 or correct behavior?
 Jens



I think this is correct.  The -unittest switch implicitly turns on asserts, and
as
far as I can tell makes the -release switch ignored.  This means that
assert(false) is no longer special and works just like a regular assert as per
TDPL.

Is this a problem in practice?  If so, please explain.
Nov 16 2010
prev sibling parent Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 == Quote from Jens Mueller (jens.k.mueller gmx.de)'s article

 Hi,
 assert(false) should generate the hlt instruction in release mode.
 I.e.
 assert.d:
 void hlt() {
 	assert(false);
 }
 $ dmd -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 works. But
 $ dmd -unittest -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 fails.
 Can't one have hlt together with unittest? Is it a bug in the compiler
 or correct behavior?
 Jens



 I think this is correct.  The -unittest switch implicitly turns on asserts,
and as
 far as I can tell makes the -release switch ignored.  This means that
 assert(false) is no longer special and works just like a regular assert as per
TDPL.



I see.


 Is this a problem in practice?  If so, please explain.



Haven't thought about it. Found this by accident.

Jens
Nov 16 2010