https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30860
--- Comment #3 from jacob at jacob dot remcomp.fr --- > > Actually this is wrong. The point of compiling with NDEBUG active > is that sanity checks like the one above are removed making the code > (theoretically) faster. Anyone using programs compiled with NDEBUG > must take on the risk that the program will fail in an unhelpful way > if the input is not as expected. > > So replacing know() with gas_assert() will remove the benefit of > compiling with NDEBUG. Of course this leads to the question - why > have a gas_assert() function at all, why not just use know() all > the time ? The answer is partially programmer preference and > partially assumption of risk. If the programmer is sure that a > failing a particular test can only happen if something else is wrong > elsewhere in the code, eg a rs_org fragment not being followed by > another fragment, then using know() makes sense. If the test fails > then there is a bug elsewhere and this code is not at fault. So it > should be safe to remove the test when compiling with NDEBUG - using > NDEBUG implies that the user is happy with the code's behaviour and > does not want extra tests. > > If on the other hand, the programmer knows that an issue can arise > because of input over which the code has no control - eg the assembler > source input file - and there is no easy way to report this error back > to the user, then using gas_assert() makes sense. The code cannot > continue and cannot go back, so halting with an error message is the > only option. > > Having said all of that, there probably are places in the current code > where it would be better to use gas_assert() instead of know() and > places where it would be better to report an error back to the function > caller rather than halting. It is just that, in my opinion, write.c:3014 > is not one of them. > Hi Nick Look, I do not share your views but I understand them. It is such a matter of programming philosophy that I agree that you can leave that as it is now. It is not a serious problem. Thanks for your work in binutils gas. Jacob -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
