Re: assume-just Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 17 Jun 2020 17:22 UTC

Am Mi., 17. Juni 2020 um 19:17 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:50 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe we should add a (post-finalization) note to SRFI 145 that
>>
>> (assume x)
>>
>> should be equivalent to what the following would be in the GCC:
>>
>> #ifndef NDEBUG
>> assert (x);
>> #else
>> if (!x) __builtin_unreachable ();
>> #endif
>
>
> That would certainly be non-normative.  I'm not sure how I feel about defining something in an SRFI with respect to not only C but GCC.  Shouldn't the existing definitions be enough?

I didn't mean that we should take my "equivalent" verbatim. :)

So, we would have to find a wording (if this isn't clear enough from
the text and the rationale of SRFI 145) that expresses the same as the
C code does. But for people knowing C, the code is certainly the
clearest explanation.