I have an 'enforce' function call in an 'in' block for a function. When I compile with "-release -O -inline", the in/out blocks appear to be skipped. It's a simple verification for a dynamic array to not have a length of 0. In debug mode, the test condition hits the enforce in the 'in' block, but in release mode it does not. In both release and debug mode, the same exact enforce function works properly.

So am I to understand that -release will skip in/out blocks entirely?

On Friday 04 March 2011 20:14:32 Kai Meyer wrote:
> I have an 'enforce' function call in an 'in' block for a function. When I compile with "-release -O -inline", the in/out blocks appear to be skipped. It's a simple verification for a dynamic array to not have a length of 0. In debug mode, the test condition hits the enforce in the 'in' block, but in release mode it does not. In both release and debug mode, the same exact enforce function works properly.
> 
> So am I to understand that -release will skip in/out blocks entirely?

Of course. It uses asserts. asserts are disabled in -release. Asserts are for debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code which is released. So, you get the benefit of the test when you don't have -release and the benefit of speed when you do have -release. If an assertion fails, your code logic is invalid. It's for validating your code, not user input or whatnot.

enforce, on the other hand, is not a language primitive. It's not intended for testing or debugging. It's intended to be used in production code to throw an exception when its condition fails. If an enforce fails, that generally means that you had bad input somewhere or that an operation failed or whatnot. It's not intended for testing the logic of your code like assert is intended to do. It's simply a shorthand way to throw an exception when your program runs into a problem.

- Jonathan M Davis

Jonathan M Davis:

> Asserts are for debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code which is released.

If you take a look at the dmd compiler, it's released with asserts in, and they give all those nice error messages I put in Bugzilla :-)

Bye,
bearophile

On 03/05/2011 01:58 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
>
>> Asserts are for
>> debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code which is
>> released.
>
> If you take a look at the dmd compiler, it's released with asserts in, and they give all those nice error messages I put in Bugzilla :-)

lol!
I have a similar problem in designing the implementation of a toy language: the issue is that users of the runtime are, for instance, lib developpers, which own users are developpers in the source language beeing implemented, for their own final users...
This makes it rather abstract to think at what is, or should be, the realisation of an error spit by the runtime. It cannot be a normal error from the implementation language, and also not an error of the source language. I had to write my own // error system.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

On 3/5/11, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
>
>> Asserts are for
>> debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code which
>> is
>> released.
>
> If you take a look at the dmd compiler, it's released with asserts in, and they give all those nice error messages I put in Bugzilla :-)
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
>

Hmm. Are those shown when compiling a file with -debug? Or do I need to compile DMD itself in debug/nonrelease mode to activate those error messages?

On 03/04/2011 09:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday 04 March 2011 20:14:32 Kai Meyer wrote:
>> I have an 'enforce' function call in an 'in' block for a function. When I
>> compile with "-release -O -inline", the in/out blocks appear to be skipped.
>> It's a simple verification for a dynamic array to not have a length of 0.
>> In debug mode, the test condition hits the enforce in the 'in' block, but
>> in release mode it does not. In both release and debug mode, the same
>> exact enforce function works properly.
>>
>> So am I to understand that -release will skip in/out blocks entirely?
>
> Of course. It uses asserts. asserts are disabled in -release. Asserts are for
> debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code which is
> released. So, you get the benefit of the test when you don't have -release and
> the benefit of speed when you do have -release. If an assertion fails, your code
> logic is invalid. It's for validating your code, not user input or whatnot.
>
> enforce, on the other hand, is not a language primitive. It's not intended for
> testing or debugging. It's intended to be used in production code to throw an
> exception when its condition fails. If an enforce fails, that generally means
> that you had bad input somewhere or that an operation failed or whatnot. It's
> not intended for testing the logic of your code like assert is intended to do.
> It's simply a shorthand way to throw an exception when your program runs into a
> problem.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I don't think I understand your response entirely. I understand that asserts are disabled in -release mode. I understand that enforce is a function that comes with std.exception, and the code isn't hard to follow.

What I'm confused about is the in block, and why it is skipped in -release mode. You say "It uses asserts." I didn't put an assert in my in block, I put an enforce. So I'm guessing that you are indicating that the in block is treated like an assert, and is disabled with the -release flag.

But I think after reading your post you've helped clarify that what I'm checking (that you can't pop an empty stack) based on user input is something I should be checking with an enforce inside the function, and not an assert or enforce inside the in block.

I still think I would like it if you could be a little more explicit about the in/out blocks. Are they always disabled entirely (skipped) with -release, or just certain things?

Thanks for your help!

-Kai Meyer

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:15:48 -0700, user wrote:

> On 03/04/2011 09:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Friday 04 March 2011 20:14:32 Kai Meyer wrote:
>>> I have an 'enforce' function call in an 'in' block for a function. When I compile with "-release -O -inline", the in/out blocks appear to be skipped. It's a simple verification for a dynamic array to not have a length of 0. In debug mode, the test condition hits the enforce in the 'in' block, but in release mode it does not. In both release and debug mode, the same exact enforce function works properly.
>>>
>>> So am I to understand that -release will skip in/out blocks entirely?
>>
>> Of course. It uses asserts. asserts are disabled in -release. Asserts are for debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code which is released. So, you get the benefit of the test when you don't have -release and the benefit of speed when you do have -release. If an assertion fails, your code logic is invalid. It's for validating your code, not user input or whatnot.
>>
>> enforce, on the other hand, is not a language primitive. It's not intended for testing or debugging. It's intended to be used in production code to throw an exception when its condition fails. If an enforce fails, that generally means that you had bad input somewhere or that an operation failed or whatnot. It's not intended for testing the logic of your code like assert is intended to do. It's simply a shorthand way to throw an exception when your program runs into a problem.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> I don't think I understand your response entirely. I understand that asserts are disabled in -release mode. I understand that enforce is a function that comes with std.exception, and the code isn't hard to follow.
> 
> What I'm confused about is the in block, and why it is skipped in -release mode. You say "It uses asserts." I didn't put an assert in my in block, I put an enforce. So I'm guessing that you are indicating that the in block is treated like an assert, and is disabled with the -release flag.
> 
> But I think after reading your post you've helped clarify that what I'm checking (that you can't pop an empty stack) based on user input is something I should be checking with an enforce inside the function, and not an assert or enforce inside the in block.
> 
> I still think I would like it if you could be a little more explicit about the in/out blocks. Are they always disabled entirely (skipped) with -release, or just certain things?
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> -Kai Meyer

That's right.  in, out and invariant blocks are not included in release mode.

-Lars

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 18:12:30 +0000, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:15:48 -0700, user wrote:
> 
>> On 03/04/2011 09:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Friday 04 March 2011 20:14:32 Kai Meyer wrote:
>>>> I have an 'enforce' function call in an 'in' block for a function. When I compile with "-release -O -inline", the in/out blocks appear to be skipped. It's a simple verification for a dynamic array to not have a length of 0. In debug mode, the test condition hits the enforce in the 'in' block, but in release mode it does not. In both release and debug mode, the same exact enforce function works properly.
>>>>
>>>> So am I to understand that -release will skip in/out blocks entirely?
>>>
>>> Of course. It uses asserts. asserts are disabled in -release. Asserts are for debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code which is released. So, you get the benefit of the test when you don't have -release and the benefit of speed when you do have -release. If an assertion fails, your code logic is invalid. It's for validating your code, not user input or whatnot.
>>>
>>> enforce, on the other hand, is not a language primitive. It's not intended for testing or debugging. It's intended to be used in production code to throw an exception when its condition fails. If an enforce fails, that generally means that you had bad input somewhere or that an operation failed or whatnot. It's not intended for testing the logic of your code like assert is intended to do. It's simply a shorthand way to throw an exception when your program runs into a problem.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>> 
>> I don't think I understand your response entirely. I understand that asserts are disabled in -release mode. I understand that enforce is a function that comes with std.exception, and the code isn't hard to follow.
>> 
>> What I'm confused about is the in block, and why it is skipped in -release mode. You say "It uses asserts." I didn't put an assert in my in block, I put an enforce. So I'm guessing that you are indicating that the in block is treated like an assert, and is disabled with the -release flag.
>> 
>> But I think after reading your post you've helped clarify that what I'm checking (that you can't pop an empty stack) based on user input is something I should be checking with an enforce inside the function, and not an assert or enforce inside the in block.
>> 
>> I still think I would like it if you could be a little more explicit about the in/out blocks. Are they always disabled entirely (skipped) with -release, or just certain things?
>> 
>> Thanks for your help!
>> 
>> -Kai Meyer
> 
> That's right.  in, out and invariant blocks are not included in release mode.
> 
> -Lars

It's documented here, by the way: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/dmd-linux.html#switches

(Scroll down to -release.)

-Lars

On Saturday 05 March 2011 05:30:23 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 3/5/11, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis:
> >> Asserts are for
> >> debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code
> >> which is
> >> released.
> > 
> > If you take a look at the dmd compiler, it's released with asserts in, and they give all those nice error messages I put in Bugzilla :-)
> > 
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
> 
> Hmm. Are those shown when compiling a file with -debug? Or do I need to compile DMD itself in debug/nonrelease mode to activate those error messages?

You would need to compile dmd in debug mode if you wanted it to have assertions enabled, the same as any other C or C++ program in existence. That's the way that C/C++'s assert library works.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday 05 March 2011 13:54:08 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday 05 March 2011 05:30:23 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > On 3/5/11, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > Jonathan M Davis:
> > >> Asserts are for
> > >> debugging, testing, and verifying code when developing, not for code
> > >> which is
> > >> released.
> > > 
> > > If you take a look at the dmd compiler, it's released with asserts in, and they give all those nice error messages I put in Bugzilla :-)
> > > 
> > > Bye,
> > > bearophile
> > 
> > Hmm. Are those shown when compiling a file with -debug? Or do I need to compile DMD itself in debug/nonrelease mode to activate those error messages?
> 
> You would need to compile dmd in debug mode if you wanted it to have assertions enabled, the same as any other C or C++ program in existence. That's the way that C/C++'s assert library works.

Actually, I take that back. The way that C/C++'s assert library works is that assertions are compiled in if NDEBUG is _not_ defined. What the "debug" build of a project does is entirely up to the project. The concept of debug and release versions isn't really built in to the language per se. Normally, debug versions compile in the debug symbols and release versions do not, and release versions typically are set up such that they don't run unnecessary stuff which would harm efficiency (such as assertions). But _exactly_ how debug and release versions are set up depends on the project.

In the case of dmd, it may be that some assertions are left in on the theory that this it's _really_ critical code and you _still_ want it to fail immediately when an assertion would have failed (whereas more typically, you'd compile out the assertions in release mode, assuming that you'd done enough testing in debug mode to find and fix all the bugs that they relate to). But to know exactly what dmd does with assertions, you'd have to look at its makefiles and possibly the code itself.

- Jonathan M Davis