On 11.10.2017 11:27, John Burton wrote:
The spec says this :-
"As a contract, an assert represents a guarantee that the code must
uphold. Any failure of this expression represents a logic error in the
code that must be fixed in the source code. A program for which the
assert contract is false is, by definition, invalid, and therefore has
undefined behaviour."
Now I worry about the words "undefined behavior" because in C++ compiler
writers seem to have decided that these words mean that it's ok for the
compiler to generate code to do whatever it feels like even in
unconnected code and even before the undefined behavior is invoked
because some subsequent code has undefined behavior.
From my C++ experience this paragraph tells me that if I use "assert"
to check my assumptions, and the assertion is false, then this could
lead to my program failing in unpredictable ways unconnected with the
actual assertion.
Yes, that's what it is saying. (The other answers, that say or try to
imply that this is not true or true but not a bad thing, are wrong.)
To make this more obvious, see:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/lrbpvj$mih$1...@digitalmars.com
Refer to point 2. The fix is to not use both assert and -release.
However, in practice, I think none of the current compiler
implementations actually uses assert expressions for optimizations.
