Re: failure due to compiler?

davidg@genmagic.com (Dave Gillett)
24 Jul 1996 22:51:30 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[25 earlier articles]
Re: failure due to compiler? jgllgher@maths.tcd.ie (Dara Gallagher) (1996-07-20)
Re: failure due to compiler? ok@cs.rmit.edu.au (1996-07-22)
Re: failure due to compiler? rfg@monkeys.com (1996-07-22)
Re: failure due to compiler? leew@micrologic.com (Lee Webber) (1996-07-23)
Re: failure due to compiler? eric@gyst.com (Eric Hamilton) (1996-07-23)
Re: failure due to compiler? davidg@genmagic.com (1996-07-23)
Re: failure due to compiler? davidg@genmagic.com (1996-07-24)
Re: failure due to compiler? jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (1996-07-26)
'assert' peeves [was: failure due to compiler?] hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1996-07-27)
Re: failure due to compiler? davidg@genmagic.com (1996-07-31)
Re: failure due to compiler? feliks@carlstedt.se (1996-07-31)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: davidg@genmagic.com (Dave Gillett)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 24 Jul 1996 22:51:30 -0400
Organization: General Magic
References: 96-07-041 96-07-056 96-07-064 96-07-079 96-07-100 96-07-123 96-07-141
Keywords: errors

jgllgher@maths.tcd.ie says...
>However, as expressions in C++ (and Eiffel) may have side effects, turning
>assertion checking off may alter the behaviour of the program. One Eiffel
>user I know claims to have experienced this perplexing behaviour. His
>program worked as expected until he turned assertion checking off!


    The particular home-grown flavour of assertion-checking macro that I like
has the "feature" of deliberately evaluating the tested expression *twice*.
Code that relies on side-effects of such evaluation typically breaks while
I'm still building debug versions.


Dave
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.