This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] tree-cfg.c: Speed up cleanup_tree_cfg().
Diego Novillo wrote:
> My concern is, actually, new code. I was also under the impression
> that gcc_assert was a nop in released compilers. We should have a
> bigger warning sign.
I thought this was explained in details by Nathan, in both documentation and
Remember that keeping asserts in release builds can save people from many
silent codegen bugs.
> I guess that a rule of thumb could be "no function calls in gcc_assert
> without ENABLE_CHECKING guards".
Maybe. I kept some RTL-level predicate call if it looked to me lightweight
enough. Nathan also told me that he was going to double-check/refine the
performances of asserts when 4.0 branches.
> I hope this is documented?