This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: assertify mn10300
Alexandre Oliva <email@example.com> writes:
> The problem was not the inversion of the condition, but rather the
> fact that, with checking disabled, the gcc_assert would be
> completely optimized away, thus enabling the broken situation to
> skip the abort() call and proceed to code that might fail to handle
> it properly.
This is, on one reading, the whole point of this series of changes.
It was discussed to death when Nathan originally proposed them, and a
compromise was reached (--enable-checking=release doesn't disable
gcc_assert, you have to build specifically with --disable-checking).
I'm getting tired of people trying to dig up the dead horse and beat
on it some more.