[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: suppress_checking
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: suppress_checking |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:59:06 +0200 |
On 10/23/07, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> Since eassert uses CHECK, this offers the possibility to turn off
> eassert checking at run time.
Yes, that's why I said that I understood it could be useful when
debugging. My question was more like "it was put there *for*
debugging, or left by accident?". Because if it is intended for
debugging, a comment in the code would've been nice :)
> suppress_checking is implemented in a funny way: the expression to be
> tested is computed and then ignored. That would make sense if we were
> concerned about function calls and side effects in the expression to
> be tested. However, if there were any, ENABLE_CHECKING would not work.
> So we may as well test suppress_checking first.
AFAICS, the !ENABLE_CHECKING version of CHECK does evaluate (check)
too, so the side effects are intended.
On the other hand, the !ENABLE_CHECKING version of CHECK is not used
anywhere. CHECK is only used in eassert (in lisp.h) and
NULL_INTERVAL_P (in intervals.h), and always when ENABLE_CHECKING is
defined.
Juanma
- suppress_checking, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/10/22
- Re: suppress_checking, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/23
- Re: suppress_checking,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: suppress_checking, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/23
- Re: suppress_checking, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/10/24
- Re: suppress_checking, Ken Raeburn, 2007/10/29
- Re: suppress_checking, Ken Raeburn, 2007/10/29
- Re: suppress_checking, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/10/29
- Re: suppress_checking, Stefan Monnier, 2007/10/29
- Re: suppress_checking, Ken Raeburn, 2007/10/29
- Re: suppress_checking, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/30
- Re: suppress_checking, Ken Raeburn, 2007/10/31