From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: xassert in dispextern.h Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:01:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200503012317.j21NHIj20008@raven.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109725622 6893 80.91.229.2 (2 Mar 2005 01:07:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 01:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Luc Teirlinck , storm@cua.dk, miles@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 02 02:07:00 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6IJJ-0002ir-Ra for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:06:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6Iby-0005jl-TE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:25:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D6IZv-0004WW-H7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:23:07 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D6IZk-0004PS-S2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:23:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6IZj-0004Nf-1H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:22:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D6IFQ-0003WL-TE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:01:56 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D6IFQ-0007tK-AI; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:01:56 -0500 Original-To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:35:48 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:34025 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:34025 Miles Bader writes: > The argument for disabling xassert assumes that the majority of them > are superfluous; clearly if this _isn't_ the case then disabling > xassert is a bad idea. The majority of them clearly _are_ "superfluous" since they assert assumptions occuring in the context of earlier, fixed bugs. They are basically superfluous until a change gets made that triggers one of them. They are, so to say, the poor man's regression test, and one does not need to run those tests continuously. > In order to demonstrate that the majority are superfluous, one has > to actually be able to make exactly the same sort of judgement for > each xassert -- so I'm saying, if you can make that judgement, then > why not use it on a case-by-case basis to get the best of both > worlds? Because there are lots of cases. grep in the source directory of Emacs turns up 1430 of them. You want to make that judgment on a case-by-case basis? When were we planning the release? 2007? > If, on the other hand, it's the case that nobody can make that > judgement for most xasserts, then nobody is in a position to say > xassert can safely be disabled either. That's why we are not deleting the xasserts, but turning them off by default, and, among developers, from time to time turning them on in order to check whether everything looks as good as last time around. We are not talking about removing the xasserts: that would be foolish. We are talking about not inflicting them by default on a larger audience on which their purpose will be completely lost. I'll second any appeal for people _on_ _this_ _list_ to turn the asserts on, even to run Emacs with GLYPH_DEBUG set once in a while. But HEAD is a really bad place for such a setting, given that others than ourselves are responsible for make-shift pseudoreleases. I don't want to sabotage others doing our work for us, not if it can be avoided. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum