On Tuesday, 27 de September de 2011 09:48:29 Joerg Bornemann wrote: > On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 14:44 +0200, ext Stefan Majewsky wrote: > > Why isn't there any variant of Q_ASSERT that expands like > > > > #define Q_ASSERT_ALT(x) x; > > > > in release builds? If it's a simple value check like Q_ASSERT_ALT(x > > > 0), the compiler will optimize the effect-less statement away. > > The standard assert macro in assert.h behaves the same. It does nothing > as soon as you define NDEBUG. > Having a Q_ASSERT_ALT macro (whatever its gonna be named) is IMHO > confusing and not of much value.
If you need something like that, it's very easy to write:
bool check = your code goes here;
Q_ASSERT(check); Q_UNUSED(check);
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list Qt5-feedback@qt.nokia.com http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
