Oh wow, I somehow thought it was intended behavior, since @mratsim advocated to compile with -d:release -d:danger almost immediately after -d:danger was introduced. So I thought you were aware of this.
- Is "danger" define supposed to also define "... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to also defi... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to also ... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to a... ktamp
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed ... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supp... juancarlospaco
- Re: Is "danger" define ... Araq
- Re: Is "danger" def... Vindaar
- Re: Is "danger" def... dom96
