On 7/9/2017 3:37 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Wait, you have stated many many times, a segfault is good enough, it's not worth
the added cost to do null pointer exceptions (a position I'm completely in
agreement with).
That's right.
Yet, here is an example of where we have effectively added a
null pointer exception. > At the very least, this should be eliminated on Linux
and just use the signal handling null pointer error mechanism!
You're a few years late, as pretty much nobody agreed with me that the operating
system handling of it was plenty.
Note that there is a significant difference between this situation (where you
are *adding* an extra check), and the argument to add messages to asserts (where
you are *already* asserting).
It's not really different. It's the desire for ever more messages. I've long
advocated that a file/line is quite sufficient, but I seem to be in a tiny
minority of 1. Now 2. :-)
Also noted, even if you inline, the assert is still there. Those who want to
keep asserts (particularly for safety reasons), will pay this penalty.
Yup. Though at one point I advocated an option to replace the assert fails with
a HLT instruction.
I've been using D for 10 years, and have never triggered this assert. But I've
apparently paid for it that entire time.
It's always worth looking at the assembler output now and then.
---
The thing is, the bloat from all these messages and checks has caused DMD to be
compiled with -release. Oops, that let through a few bugs.
