I like to think of it as the Harrison Bergeron test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)... - tim On 10/21/2010 12:04 PM, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
On 10/21/2010 11:35 AM, Carl Ollivier-Gooch wrote:
My memory is that we had already agreed that an implementation is free to skip expensive (and even cheap) checks when compiled in release mode, though it should do all checks in debug mode. The latter is very important to help developers debug code, but once it's working (i.e., nothing stupid being done by accident), a lot of those checks are unnecessary, so turning them off for release code is no problem. Conditionally-defined macros will do this. As Mark said, there are run-time configurable methods for this, too, though I suspect they add a small amount of overhead in practice.
You are stating that implementations must conform to a standard behavior of prohibiting cyclical links. And then recommending that we disable such restrictions in the version/build of the code that will be used in practice. Then why even make this a requirement? What's the point of making us jump through hoops implementing a "strict conformance" build that will only be used in practice with the conformance tests? How much code can we change between the two? Would instead building a copy of the reference implementation if strict conformance is requested be okay?
- jason
-- ================================================================ "You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in you." Isaiah 26:3 Tim Tautges Argonne National Laboratory ([email protected]) (telecommuting from UW-Madison) phone: (608) 263-8485 1500 Engineering Dr. fax: (608) 263-4499 Madison, WI 53706