🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KANZE.95Oct9140029@slsvgqt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>,
kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) wrote:

>In article <AC9C151B9668D9B8@sleipner.nts.mh.se> lars.farm@nts.mh.se
>(Lars Farm) writes:
>
>|> In article <DG010o.LFK@research.att.com>,
>|> ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) wrote:
>
>|> >Again, I think implementations that check the rules at run time are
>|> >a Good Thing, especialy if you can afford them.  But sometimes you can't.
>
>|> In those few cases, I'd turn checking of selectively after testing and
>|> profiling. That is, I would if I could. It's always off in all my
>|> compilers:-( Why not reserve a #pragma for this? imho no range check by
>|> default is a premature optimization.
>
>I'd rather agree with Andy Koenig: "run-time checking is a good thing
>if you can afford it."  This would suggest that the only time you turn
>checking off is when profiling shows that you have a performance
>problem due to run-time checking."

Interesting. I got the impression he felt they were a good thing, but would
impair performance too much to be required in the general case and I
responded accordingly.

Anyhow, I was unclear. Your reply is the second that indicates my failure
to communicate. Let me try again: I want runtime checks by default and some
mechanism to turn them off selectively. If I choose to turn checking off, I
would do so on a loop by loop basis and only after profiling and test. I
would also follow up by more profiling to see if it made a difference.

I consider the current status of every c++ compiler I have access to - no
range check at all - a premature, bad and unwanted optimization. I have
never seen a C++ compiler that does runtime checking. I'd love to use one,
even if the checking is only partial.


--
Lars Farm, lars.farm@nts.mh.se