Re: Conditional compilation: Which version identifier for release code ? version(assert) ?
On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 11:54:38 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 10:43:01 UTC, wjoe wrote: Could you elaborate on ```version(assert)``` a bit more, please ? Like I compiled with ```-release, -g``` and without the 2 options but the ```assert``` branch was always taken. Could it be that ```-unittest``` has something to do with it ? Yes, -unittest overrides -release and enables asserts. -check=assert=off overrides both. It is sort of embarassing reading this after one night's sleep. But the lesson learned was well worth it, thanks :) So in light of all of this what I was looking for is ```D_NoBoundsChecks``` which you mentioned initially.
Re: Conditional compilation: Which version identifier for release code ? version(assert) ?
On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 11:01:56 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 09:18:08 UTC, wjoe wrote: If it's to be determined whether or not the code is being compiled in debug or release mode, i.e. e.g. the dmd ```-release``` You should never use the -release flag. It should be renamed to "-enable-security-holes" since that's what it actually does. This is good advice. Actually I had no intention to *use* the ```-release``` option. My question was aimed at getting an understanding of the different version identifiers and how they are affected by the command line options in order to be able to pick one that reflects the users expectations. My wording should have been better. Sorry for the confusion. Instead you can disable specific things as-needed, but it is probably never needed. These are also never supposed to actually change the behavior of your program, but in reality, like I said they do tend to change it - by enabling security holes. However isn't the point of using version identifiers and these options to actually change the behavior of the program ? I mean if bounds checking is enabled I expect the program to behave differently, i.e. to abort if something is out of bounds.
Re: Conditional compilation: Which version identifier for release code ? version(assert) ?
On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 10:43:01 UTC, wjoe wrote: Could you elaborate on ```version(assert)``` a bit more, please ? Like I compiled with ```-release, -g``` and without the 2 options but the ```assert``` branch was always taken. Could it be that ```-unittest``` has something to do with it ? Yes, -unittest overrides -release and enables asserts. -check=assert=off overrides both. I agree with Adam about avoiding -release. -debug is useful. -release, not so much since we have finer control over enabling/disabling checks these days.
Re: Conditional compilation: Which version identifier for release code ? version(assert) ?
On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 09:18:08 UTC, wjoe wrote: If it's to be determined whether or not the code is being compiled in debug or release mode, i.e. e.g. the dmd ```-release``` You should never use the -release flag. It should be renamed to "-enable-security-holes" since that's what it actually does. Instead you can disable specific things as-needed, but it is probably never needed. These are also never supposed to actually change the behavior of your program, but in reality, like I said they do tend to change it - by enabling security holes.
Re: Conditional compilation: Which version identifier for release code ? version(assert) ?
On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 10:08:12 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 09:18:08 UTC, wjoe wrote: Given that we have `version(assert)` and `version(D_NoBoundsChecks)`, it probably makes sense to also have equivalents to test if contracts are enabled, or if bounds checking is enabled only in safe code. Then you'd be able to cover all the bases that -release does. Sounds like a candidate for an enhancement request. Thanks, that helps a lot. I agree about release and debug modes. It got stuck in my mind when I used Visual Studio years ago which, at least at the time, created a Debug and Release configuration by default. Could you elaborate on ```version(assert)``` a bit more, please ? Like I compiled with ```-release, -g``` and without the 2 options but the ```assert``` branch was always taken. Could it be that ```-unittest``` has something to do with it ?
Re: Conditional compilation: Which version identifier for release code ? version(assert) ?
On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 09:18:08 UTC, wjoe wrote: If it's to be determined whether or not the code is being compiled in debug or release mode, i.e. e.g. the dmd ```-release``` or ```-g``` options, which version identifier is supposed to be used ? There's no ```release``` identifier and ```-debug``` switch and ```debug()``` condition are something else. There's ```assert - Checks are being emitted for AssertExpressions```. With the exception for ```assert(0)```, those checks are omitted in release mode so this could be used for that purpose, right? I don't think it would make much sense to have a `version(release)`, as there's really no such thing as a "release mode", or a "debug mode" either. -release is just a shorthand to disable certain features that you can also disable individually, and -debug means whatever you want it to mean. Given that we have `version(assert)` and `version(D_NoBoundsChecks)`, it probably makes sense to also have equivalents to test if contracts are enabled, or if bounds checking is enabled only in safe code. Then you'd be able to cover all the bases that -release does. Sounds like a candidate for an enhancement request.
