|
From: | Ken Raeburn |
Subject: | Re: suppress_checking |
Date: | Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:47:57 -0400 |
On Oct 29, 2007, at 15:06, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I always run with -DENABLE_CHECKING and I do know of one significantside-effect: it requires a bit more than 1.3MB of purespace (as opposed1.17MB without it).
Interesting.If we care, it would be possible to go after certain side effects like this and rewrite the original code so that the XSTRING etc macros are always invoked with side-effect-free expressions. I can think of at least three or four ways to tackle the problem, with varying degrees of difficulty. The question is, do we care....
Ken
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |