From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WsphM-0002w5-Qd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:40:28 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.181; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WsphL-0005Xm-NE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:40:28 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id rp18so2079965iec.12 for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:40:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.9.104 with SMTP id y8mr6059980iga.43.1402044021065; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.184.195 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 01:40:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1401822421.27942.YahooMailNeo@web124505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <538EF81D.9060301@stud.uni-saarland.de> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:40:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Wladimir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WsphL-0005Xm-NE Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error "Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions." <<< List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:40:29 -0000 On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Wladimir wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jannis Froese > wrote: > >> I think most concerns about the current use of asserts would be resolved >> if the currently used asserts would be changed to a nicer definition which >> is independent of NDEBUG, and a second class of debugging asserts would be >> introduced, which is exclusively for expensive, redundant checks and is >> disabled by NDEBUG. There are a few examples of things that would classify as expensive/redundant checks: * addrman consistency checks (only enabled with -DDEBUG_ADDRMAN). * mempool consistency checks (only enabled with -checkmempool). * deadlock detection (only enabled with -DDEBUG_LOCKORDER). I'm not sure all of these make sense to put under a single runtime flag. For example, addrman consistency is unlikely to be affected unless you're working on addrman code, and is pretty expensive. Still, I do like the idea of optional consistency checks, that help guarantee the software always has a consistency state. -- Pieter