• Jens Mueller (16/16) Nov 16 2010 Hi,
• dsimcha (5/21) Nov 16 2010 I think this is correct. The -unittest switch implicitly turns on asser...
• Jens Mueller (4/26) Nov 16 2010 Haven't thought about it. Found this by accident.
• bearophile (4/9) Nov 16 2010 We have recently discussed a related topic. That works according to the ...

Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de> writes:

Hi,

assert(false) should generate the hlt instruction in release mode.
I.e.
assert.d:
void hlt() {
	assert(false);
}

$ dmd -release -c assert.d
$ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt

works. But

$ dmd -unittest -release -c assert.d
$ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt

fails.

Can't one have hlt together with unittest? Is it a bug in the compiler
or correct behavior?

Jens

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from Jens Mueller (jens.k.mueller gmx.de)'s article
 Hi,
 assert(false) should generate the hlt instruction in release mode.
 I.e.
 assert.d:
 void hlt() {
 	assert(false);
 }
 $ dmd -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 works. But
 $ dmd -unittest -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 fails.
 Can't one have hlt together with unittest? Is it a bug in the compiler
 or correct behavior?
 Jens

I think this is correct.  The -unittest switch implicitly turns on asserts, and
as
far as I can tell makes the -release switch ignored.  This means that
assert(false) is no longer special and works just like a regular assert as per
TDPL.

Is this a problem in practice?  If so, please explain.

Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de> writes:

dsimcha wrote:
 == Quote from Jens Mueller (jens.k.mueller gmx.de)'s article
 Hi,
 assert(false) should generate the hlt instruction in release mode.
 I.e.
 assert.d:
 void hlt() {
 	assert(false);
 }
 $ dmd -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 works. But
 $ dmd -unittest -release -c assert.d
 $ obj2asm assert.o | grep -w hlt
 fails.
 Can't one have hlt together with unittest? Is it a bug in the compiler
 or correct behavior?
 Jens

 
 I think this is correct.  The -unittest switch implicitly turns on asserts,
and as
 far as I can tell makes the -release switch ignored.  This means that
 assert(false) is no longer special and works just like a regular assert as per
TDPL.

I see.

 Is this a problem in practice?  If so, please explain.

Haven't thought about it. Found this by accident.

Jens

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

dsimcha:

 I think this is correct.  The -unittest switch implicitly turns on asserts,
and as
 far as I can tell makes the -release switch ignored.  This means that
 assert(false) is no longer special and works just like a regular assert as per
TDPL.
 
 Is this a problem in practice?  If so, please explain.

We have recently discussed a related topic. That works according to the specs.
But mixing the halt with asserts is not tidy and it's not good. The conclusion
was that the design is bad, but apparently it's not bad enough to justify a fix.

Bye,
bearophile