On 01/10/2013 08:41 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/09/2013 04:14 PM, Charles Hixson wrote:
Would the following code:
for (int i = 1; i < di.count; i++)
{ assert (node.di.entry[i - 1].key < node.di.entry[i].key); }
be optimized away if compiled under -release?
It looks like you can use std.algorithm.isSorted instead:
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_algorithm.html#isSorted
assert(isSorted(di));
Or perhaps:
assert(isSorted(node.di.entry[0 .. di.count]));
That code will disappear in release mode.
Additionally, if the O(N) complexity of that check is not acceptable
even in non-release mode there is std.range.assumeSorted:
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html#.assumeSorted
assumeSorted makes very few comparisons so it may miss occasional sort
issues. Also, it is not really for checking but more for range
algorithms that require or work better with a sorted range.
Ali
Unfortunately, entry is also a struct. key isn't its only member. If
there's some other reason to define a opCmp on entry, that would be a
good approach.
OTOH, if :
version(assert)
{...}
works as suggested by monarch_dodra above, that will allow me to avoid
the problem.
