Re: PATCH partial gcj support for disabling assertion

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

David Daney wrote:

> > I'll check this into mainline in a few days if I don't hear objections.
>
> I object!

Overruled ...

> I want the enabling and disabling of assertions to be independent of 
> optimization settings.

I.e. you're not objecting to the patch or what it does, but you want
enhanced functionality.  Fair enough.

> It could default to this behavior, but there must be a command line flag 
> to override.  Given that this is the case,  why not add the command line 
> flag now?

Why don't *you* add the command line flag after I check in my patch?
The patch clearly shows where add the extra logic in enable_assertions.

My patch is an improvement over the current situation, and is designed
to support for a future flag can just plug.  I might do that, if I feel
like it.

> It would probably be a code generation flag.  How about -fassertions and 
> -fno-assertions or -fenable-assertions and -fdisable-assertions ?
>
> Of course we also need the ability to turn them off at runtime with a 
> flag to the runtime.

I guess you don't read java@gcc.gnu.org.  See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2004-03/msg00031.html
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/