On 07/31/2014 10:33 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:17:13PM -0300, Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>On 7/31/14, 4:54 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> >But doesn't that just mean that you shouldn't use -release, period?
> >AFAIK, the only thing -release does it to remove various safety
> >checks, like array bounds checks, asserts, contracts (which are
> >generally written using asserts), etc.. I'd think that Ary wouldn't
> >want any of these disabled, so he shouldn't use -release at all.
> >There's already -O and -inline to enable what people generally expect
>>from a release build, so -release wouldn't really be needed at all.
> >
> >Right?
> >
> >
> >T
> >
>
>That's exactly my point, thank you for summing that up:-)
>
>I don't see the point of having a "-release" flag. It should be
>renamed to "-a-bit-faster-but-unsafe".
It's probably named -release because traditionally, turning off asserts
and bounds checks is what is normally done when building a C/C++ project
for release. (C/C++ don't have built-in bounds checks, but I've seen
projects that use macros for manually implementing this, which are
#define'd away when building for release.)
The suggestion is not: 'make -release disable assertions.' it is
'failing assertions are undefined behaviour in -release'.
