Re: assume-just Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 17 Jun 2020 17:22 UTC
Am Mi., 17. Juni 2020 um 19:17 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler <email@example.com>: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:50 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.