On 9/19/05, Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> wrote:
From: "Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl>
I think we should rather base on NDEBUG macro, the same that determines the behavior of assert. The whole change then boils down to adding these 6 lines at the end of assert.hpp:
#include <boost/config.hpp> #if defined(BOOST_MSVC) && defined(NDEBUG) # define BOOST_ASSUME(e) { BOOST_ASSERT(e); if (e); else __assume(0); }
Interesting. I'd have thought that calling __assume(0) was useless, but it tells the optimizer that the else clause won't occur. I wonder if that will work at all or as well as BOOST_ASSERT(e); __assume(e);.
I think it works exactly(seeing documentation and some tests) What a __assume(0) means that the assertion is always false, which means that that place cant be executed... I think __assume should replace assert exactly as is.
There's a real problem with your solution, however: you evaluate the expression twice. Won't the simpler, more direct form work?
-- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer; _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida Developer from synergy and Computer Science student from State University of Campinas(UNICAMP). Unicamp: http://www.ic.unicamp.br Synergy: http://www.synergy.com.br "There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."