www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - -release and -debug are not mutually-exclusive?

reply James Dunne <james.jdunne gmail.com> writes:
Does not having -debug mode imply -release mode?
Does not having -release mode imply -debug mode?

It seems there is some intermediate mode here which is neither release nor debug
which is causing some headaches with missing _assert functions during linking.
I think this needs to be fixed.  Either have -release or -debug.

Regards,
James Dunne
May 24 2005
next sibling parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
You're misunderstanding the options.  I admit this is misleading:

  -debug         compile in debug code
  -release       compile release version

But, it's really this simple:

Debug means anything in debug {} sections.
Release means no asserts, no dbc, etc.
No release, no debug means asserts, dbc, etc... but no code in debug {}.
Debug and release means no asserts, no dbc, but code in debug {} 
compiled in.

So, no - they are not mutually exclusive.  They only change the default 
behavior in different ways.

For a more visual example, this code:

int main()
{
    debug printf("hello!");

    assert(0);
    return 0;
}

When compiled with no paramaters (just dmd test) will fail with an 
assertion error.

When compiled with -debug, it will say:

hello!

And then fail with an assertion failure.

When compiled with -release, it will output nothing and return to the 
prompt happy as can be.

When compiled with -release -debug, it will say:

hello!

And then return to the prompt happy as can be, no assertion failure.

-[Unknown]



 Does not having -debug mode imply -release mode?
 Does not having -release mode imply -debug mode?
 
 It seems there is some intermediate mode here which is neither release nor
debug
 which is causing some headaches with missing _assert functions during linking.
 I think this needs to be fixed.  Either have -release or -debug.
 
 Regards,
 James Dunne
May 24 2005
parent reply James Dunne <james.jdunne gmail.com> writes:
Thank you.  That was so clear.  You should seriously write documentation.

But still, what is with the missing _assert functions?  Is this just a phobos
compilation problem?

In article <d6vg7t$1jqp$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Unknown W. Brackets says...

You're misunderstanding the options.  I admit this is misleading:

  -debug         compile in debug code
  -release       compile release version

But, it's really this simple:

Debug means anything in debug {} sections.
Release means no asserts, no dbc, etc.
No release, no debug means asserts, dbc, etc... but no code in debug {}.
Debug and release means no asserts, no dbc, but code in debug {} 
compiled in.

So, no - they are not mutually exclusive.  They only change the default 
behavior in different ways.

For a more visual example, this code:

int main()
{
    debug printf("hello!");

    assert(0);
    return 0;
}

When compiled with no paramaters (just dmd test) will fail with an 
assertion error.

When compiled with -debug, it will say:

hello!

And then fail with an assertion failure.

When compiled with -release, it will output nothing and return to the 
prompt happy as can be.

When compiled with -release -debug, it will say:

hello!

And then return to the prompt happy as can be, no assertion failure.

-[Unknown]



 Does not having -debug mode imply -release mode?
 Does not having -release mode imply -debug mode?
 
 It seems there is some intermediate mode here which is neither release nor
debug
 which is causing some headaches with missing _assert functions during linking.
 I think this needs to be fixed.  Either have -release or -debug.
 
 Regards,
 James Dunne




Regards,
James Dunne
May 24 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
 Thank you.  That was so clear.  You should seriously write documentation.


Thanks.  I'm glad I was able to help, and as it happens I do write 
(development) documentation ;).  For my own project, that is.  But 
mostly I code.


 But still, what is with the missing _assert functions?  Is this just a phobos
 compilation problem?


_assert functions?  I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.  I know 
there's no _assert, but rather assert (built into the language.)

As for phobos, it's compiled in -release mode by default, which imho 
isn't how I'd like it.  Ideally, I would have it use phobos in release 
only when I compile in release.  Maybe "phobos-release.lib"/.a.

-[Unknown]
May 24 2005
parent James Dunne <james.jdunne gmail.com> writes:
In article <d702j1$2aao$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Unknown W. Brackets says...

 Thank you.  That was so clear.  You should seriously write documentation.


Thanks.  I'm glad I was able to help, and as it happens I do write 
(development) documentation ;).  For my own project, that is.  But 
mostly I code.


 But still, what is with the missing _assert functions?  Is this just a phobos
 compilation problem?


_assert functions?  I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.  I know 
there's no _assert, but rather assert (built into the language.)


It's hard to duplicate, but they're linker errors when you forget to compile
with -release mode and have asserts in your code I believe.


As for phobos, it's compiled in -release mode by default, which imho 
isn't how I'd like it.  Ideally, I would have it use phobos in release 
only when I compile in release.  Maybe "phobos-release.lib"/.a.


I agree.


-[Unknown]


Regards,
James Dunne
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:31:06 +0000 (UTC), James Dunne wrote:


 Does not having -debug mode imply -release mode?
 Does not having -release mode imply -debug mode?
 
 It seems there is some intermediate mode here which is neither release nor
debug
 which is causing some headaches with missing _assert functions during linking.
 I think this needs to be fixed.  Either have -release or -debug.


The -debug switch is poorly named as it is confusing. One tends to think in
the release-debug dichotomy, that is, its either one or the other and never
both. In fact, the -debug is exactly equivalent to the -version switch in
functionality. It is really just another *type* of -version switch. It has
no other meaning or usage except to include blocks of code enclosed in
'debug'  statements, just like -version is used to include blocks of code
enclosed by 'version' statements. 

The switch "-debug" has no effect on asserts, array-bounds testing, or
contracts (or unit tests). It only includes those blocks of code that you
have enclosed in debug statements.

The switch "-release" effects asserts, array-bounds testing, and contracts
(but not unit tests). By default these are all active unless you compile
with "-release".

The switch "-unittest" causes unittest statement blocks to be compiled in.
By default these blocks are not compiled.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
25/05/2005 6:50:00 AM
May 24 2005
parent reply James Dunne <james.jdunne gmail.com> writes:
In article <55k5c5vx3sib$.17niib7t09wqa$.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...

On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:31:06 +0000 (UTC), James Dunne wrote:


 Does not having -debug mode imply -release mode?
 Does not having -release mode imply -debug mode?
 
 It seems there is some intermediate mode here which is neither release nor
debug
 which is causing some headaches with missing _assert functions during linking.
 I think this needs to be fixed.  Either have -release or -debug.


The -debug switch is poorly named as it is confusing. One tends to think in
the release-debug dichotomy, that is, its either one or the other and never
both. In fact, the -debug is exactly equivalent to the -version switch in
functionality. It is really just another *type* of -version switch. It has
no other meaning or usage except to include blocks of code enclosed in
'debug'  statements, just like -version is used to include blocks of code
enclosed by 'version' statements. 

The switch "-debug" has no effect on asserts, array-bounds testing, or
contracts (or unit tests). It only includes those blocks of code that you
have enclosed in debug statements.

The switch "-release" effects asserts, array-bounds testing, and contracts
(but not unit tests). By default these are all active unless you compile
with "-release".

The switch "-unittest" causes unittest statement blocks to be compiled in.
By default these blocks are not compiled.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
25/05/2005 6:50:00 AM


Shouldn't this be changed to the traditional debug/release dichotomy?

For example:
-debug enables asserts, contracts, debug statements, and array bounds checking.
-release disables all asserts, contracts, debug statements, and array bounds
checking.

and set -debug mode to default.

I think this would be clearer.  It feels like a 'gotcha' right now.

Regards,
James Dunne
May 25 2005
next sibling parent "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
But, then, what enables sections like this:

debug
{
    writef("test!");
}

Or are you saying they should just be removed?  Or always compiled in?

-[Unknown]
May 25 2005
prev sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:37:04 +0000 (UTC), James Dunne wrote:


[snip]

 
 Shouldn't this be changed to the traditional debug/release dichotomy?
 
 For example:
 -debug enables asserts, contracts, debug statements, and array bounds checking.
 -release disables all asserts, contracts, debug statements, and array bounds
 checking.
 
 and set -debug mode to default.
 
 I think this would be clearer.  It feels like a 'gotcha' right now.


I think that -debug should have been named differently. It's too late now
for it to change, I guess, so we just have to live with the confusion it is
always going to cause. 

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
26/05/2005 5:49:26 AM
May 25 2005