Re: [PATCH] mailinfo.c: move side-effects outside of assert

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Dec 20, 2016, at 08:45, Jeff King wrote:

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:12:35PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

On Dec 19, 2016, at 09:45, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

ACK. I noticed this problem (and fixed it independently as a part of a huge patch series I did not get around to submit yet) while trying to
get Git to build correctly with Visual C.

Does this mean that Dscho and I are the only ones who add -DNDEBUG for release builds? Or are we just the only ones who actually run the test
suite on such builds?

It seems you and I are for the moment the only ones bothering with running
the test suite on release builds.

I wasn't aware anybody actually built with NDEBUG at all. You'd have to
explicitly ask for it via CFLAGS, so I assume most people don't.

Not a good assumption. You know what happens when you assume[1], right? ;)

I've been defining NDEBUG whenever I make a release build for quite some time (not just for Git) in order to squeeze every last possible drop of performance out of it.

Certainly I never have when deploying to GitHub's cluster (let alone my
personal use), and I note that the Debian package also does not.

Yeah, I don't do it for my personal use because those are often not based on a release tag so I want to see any assertion failures that might happen and they're also not performance critical either.

So from my perspective it is not so much "do not bother with release
builds" as "are release builds even a thing for git?"

They should be if you're deploying Git in a performance critical environment.

One of the
reasons I suggested switching the assert() to a die("BUG") is that the
latter cannot be disabled. We generally seem to prefer those to assert()
in our code-base (though there is certainly a mix). If the assertions
are not expensive to compute, I think it is better to keep them in for
all builds. I'd much rather get a report from a user that says "I hit
this BUG" than "git segfaulted and I have no idea where" (of course I
prefer a backtrace even more, but that's not always an option).

Perhaps Git should provide a "verify" macro. Works like "assert" except that it doesn't go away when NDEBUG is defined. Being Git- provided it could also use Git's die function. Then Git could do a global replace of assert with verify and institute a no-assert policy.

I do notice that we set NDEBUG for nedmalloc, though if I am reading the
Makefile right, it is just for compiling those files. It looks like
there are a ton of asserts there that _are_ potentially expensive, so
that makes sense.

So there's no way to get a non-release build of nedmalloc inside Git then without hacking the Makefile? What if you need those assertions enabled? Maybe NDEBUG shouldn't be defined by default for any files.

--Kyle

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEP1acj29-Y



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]