Re: PATCH partial gcj support for disabling assertion

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

Per Bothner wrote:

> 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.

Because I am going on vacation soon and don't have the time.

Maybe when I come back.

> 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.

You have a point I guess.  My main problem is not that it goes into the 
mainline, but that if the followup doesn't appear it won't do what I want.

> > 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

I do read it, but I am absent minded and forget a lot of what I read.

David Daney.