PATCH partial gcj support for disabling assertion
Per Bothner
per@bothner.com
Wed Mar 3 21:57:00 GMT 2004
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/
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list