Re: Debug mode

From: Dean Sturtevant (deansturtevant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-22 14:01:09

--- In boost_at_[hidden], Gregory Seidman <gseidman_at_a...> wrote:
>Why not just use #ifndef NDEBUG? It keeps things
> consistent with cassert and, like cassert, allows automatic 
building of
> debugging and optimized versions. Of course, with any system we 
devise it
> is possible for the end programmer to put the #ifndef NDEBUG in his 
own
> code, but much of the point of boost is to make less work for the
> programmer.
> 
> What is the win of a scheme other than NDEBUG?
> 
As with anything, there are tradeoffs. If it was up to me, I'd do 
what you suggested. But when I introduced the idea of putting asserts 
in boost (last month?), some people objected on the basis that 
the 'one definition rule' (ODR) would be violated. They were 
concerned that modules compiled with different settings of NDEBUG 
might be linked together in the same program. In order to accommodate 
them, I proposed using a different namespace (boost_debug) to put 
assert-laden code in. This has the drawback that one then needs a 
macro to establish the boost namespace, but it does avoid ODR 
violations. In fact, this is the technique the STLPort uses.
- Dean