«

Dear all,

I wrote a C program with assert ( str != NULL ) to check char * str is
NULL or not.

then I transferred str with NULL to assert, and I used gcc -g ... to
compile it, sure, I got
assertion.

While,
1. When I used gcc -O to compile the same program, I got the assertion
as well.
2. When I added #define NDEBUG after #include<assert.h>, used gcc -g
to compile the program,
I got the assertion as well.

I knew, if we used -O or define NDEBUG, then assert statement will not
be run. but seems I am wrong or someone was wrong?

Anyone can help me?

On 2009-12-25, <> wrote:
> While,
> 1. When I used gcc -O to compile the same program, I got the assertion
> as well.
> 2. When I added #define NDEBUG after #include<assert.h>, used gcc -g
> to compile the program,
> I got the assertion as well.

"after"

> I knew, if we used -O or define NDEBUG, then assert statement will not
> be run. but seems I am wrong or someone was wrong?

Try defining NDEBUG *before* including <assert.h>.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Dec 25, 8:06*pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2009-12-25, cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com <cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > While,
> > 1. When I used gcc -O to compile the same program, I got the assertion
> > as well.
> > 2. When I added #define NDEBUG after #include<assert.h>, used gcc -g
> > to compile the program,
> > I got the assertion as well.
>
> "after"
>
> > I knew, if we used -O or define NDEBUG, then assert statement will not
> > be run. but seems I am wrong or someone was wrong?
>
> Try defining NDEBUG *before* including <assert.h>.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. *Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

thanks, you are right, after I defined the #define NDEBUG before
#include<assert.h>, assert statement doesn't work yet.

while, how about the -O option in gcc? can this make assert not
workable?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

wrote:

> On Dec 25, 8:06 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-25, cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com <cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > While,
>> > 1. When I used gcc -O to compile the same program, I got the assertion
>> > as well.
>> > 2. When I added #define NDEBUG after #include<assert.h>, used gcc -g
>> > to compile the program,
>> > I got the assertion as well.
>>
>> "after"
>>
>> > I knew, if we used -O or define NDEBUG, then assert statement will not
>> > be run. but seems I am wrong or someone was wrong?
>>
>> Try defining NDEBUG *before* including <assert.h>.
>>
>> -s
>> --
>> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
>> usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion,
>> and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
>> <-- get educated!
>
> thanks, you are right, after I defined the #define NDEBUG before
> #include<assert.h>, assert statement doesn't work yet.
>
> while, how about the -O option in gcc? can this make assert not
> workable?

The -O option in gcc must not change the behaviour of a program (unless it
has undefined or unspecified behaviour).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAks0xggACgkQG6NzcAXitM+uOwCfQWH0/eH9IO/EyN7XvmRfpx18
kigAn3aILVbsQrHjZZXMRFle/wrQiiGl
=ewEl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"" <> writes:
> On Dec 25, 8:06Â*pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-25, cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com <cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > While,
>> > 1. When I used gcc -O to compile the same program, I got the assertion
>> > as well.
>> > 2. When I added #define NDEBUG after #include<assert.h>, used gcc -g
>> > to compile the program,
>> > I got the assertion as well.
>>
>> "after"
>>
>> > I knew, if we used -O or define NDEBUG, then assert statement will not
>> > be run. but seems I am wrong or someone was wrong?
>>
>> Try defining NDEBUG *before* including <assert.h>.
>
> thanks, you are right, after I defined the #define NDEBUG before
> #include<assert.h>, assert statement doesn't work yet.
>
> while, how about the -O option in gcc? can this make assert not
> workable?

No, the "-O" option doesn't affect the behavior of assert. Why did
you think it would?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On Dec 26, 4:51*am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> "cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com" <cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Dec 25, 8:06*pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> >> On 2009-12-25, cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com <cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > While,
> >> > 1. When I used gcc -O to compile the same program, I got the assertion
> >> > as well.
> >> > 2. When I added #define NDEBUG after #include<assert.h>, used gcc -g
> >> > to compile the program,
> >> > I got the assertion as well.
>
> >> "after"
>
> >> > I knew, if we used -O or define NDEBUG, then assert statement will not
> >> > be run. but seems I am wrong or someone was wrong?
>
> >> Try defining NDEBUG *before* including <assert.h>.
>
> > thanks, you are right, after I defined the #define NDEBUG before
> > #include<assert.h>, assert statement doesn't work yet.
>
> > while, how about the -O option in gcc? can this make assert not
> > workable?
>
> No, the "-O" option doesn't affect the behavior of assert. *Why did
> you think it would?
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org *<http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
> Nokia
> "We must do something. *This is something. *Therefore, we must do this."
> * * -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

OK, then if I compile the c program in release mode, the assert
statement should not workable, is it wrong?
If it is wrong, then how to disable the assert statement by gcc?

"" <> writes:

> On Dec 26, 4:51Â*am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com" <cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Dec 25, 8:06Â*pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> >> On 2009-12-25, cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com <cuiyouzhi0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > While,
>> >> > 1. When I used gcc -O to compile the same program, I got the assertion
>> >> > as well.
>> >> > 2. When I added #define NDEBUG after #include<assert.h>, used gcc -g
>> >> > to compile the program,
>> >> > I got the assertion as well.
>>
>> >> "after"
>>
>> >> > I knew, if we used -O or define NDEBUG, then assert statement will not
>> >> > be run. but seems I am wrong or someone was wrong?
>>
>> >> Try defining NDEBUG *before* including <assert.h>.
>>
>> > thanks, you are right, after I defined the #define NDEBUG before
>> > #include<assert.h>, assert statement doesn't work yet.
>>
>> > while, how about the -O option in gcc? can this make assert not
>> > workable?
>>
>> No, the "-O" option doesn't affect the behavior of assert. Â*Why did
>> you think it would?

[Keith's signature snipped]
>
> OK, then if I compile the c program in release mode, the assert
> statement should not workable, is it wrong?
> If it is wrong, then how to disable the assert statement by gcc?

Can you avoid quoting people's signatures please?

That's right (although I remember heated debates about whether removing
asserts from releases is a good idea or not). But the way you do it is
not by changing optimisation level (I develop at high optimisation
levels - partly because of the better checking I get from the compiler -
only turning it down if debugging goes funny). You do it just the way
you've shown, by defining NDEBUG. You can do that with a compiler
option, you don't have to wire it into the program (-DNDEBUG for gcc).
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu

On Dec 26, 10:31*pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Can you avoid quoting people's signatures please?

OK, thanks


>
> > That's right (although I remember heated debates about whether removing
> > asserts from releases is a good idea or not). *But the way you do it
> > is
>
> It is. asserts suck and are the sign of sloppy programmers who only use
> them to appear to be concerned about reliability. An assert condition
> should simply not occur.

I don't agree that assert condition should simply not occur.
such as, assert NULL pointer, I think it can occur at high
possibility.

>
> > not by changing optimisation level (I develop at high optimisation
> > levels - partly because of the better checking I get from the compiler -
> > only turning it down if debugging goes funny). *You do it just the way
> > you've shown, by defining NDEBUG. *You can do that with a compiler
> > option, you don't have to wire it into the program (-DNDEBUG for gcc).
>

So, gcc -NDEBUG -g *.c *.c -o * will work without assert?

On 12/26/2009 10:27 AM, wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:31 pm, Richard<rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> It is. asserts suck and are the sign of sloppy programmers who only use
>> them to appear to be concerned about reliability. An assert condition
>> should simply not occur.
>
> I don't agree that assert condition should simply not occur.
> such as, assert NULL pointer, I think it can occur at high
> possibility.

The claim that "asserts suck" sucks, but their purpose must
be properly understood: They are useful to the programmer, but
not to the end user. They can alert the programmer to programming
errors, but are not good for things like validating user input.

Since an unsuccessful assert() terminates the program (unless
you're doing tricky things with SIGABRT), an assert() that fires
with "high probability" means the program dies with that same
high probability -- which indicates that the program is not very
useful, because it keeps dying!

> So, gcc -NDEBUG -g *.c *.c -o * will work without assert?

The command line as shown will probably not work at all.
Changing it to something like "gcc -DNDEBUG -g *.c" will cause
the NDEBUG macro to be defined at the start of each .c file's
compilation. If it's still defined when <assert.h> is included
(that is, if you don't #undef it first), the assert() calls in
that file will expand to no-ops that have no effect on the
program's execution.

--
Eric Sosman
lid

In article <hh5e0u$kbf$>,
Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>Asserts suck because of the termination. In 99% of test cases where that
>assert triggers you can also merely run the program in a debugger and
>get a backtrace there and then and "live debug". Asserts, like
>littering code with printfs, is amateur and sucks in most cases I have
>come across them polluting the code.

Indeed. Asserts, like the regs in this newsgroup, are fossils left over
from a day and age where debuggers didn't exist.