From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-02 07:07:23
In-Reply-To: <200509282055.j8SKtbXI017230_at_[hidden]>
stewart_at_[hidden] (Rob Stewart) wrote (abridged):
> if (!e)
> {
> BOOST_ASSERT(false);
> __assume(false);
> }
>
> The optimizer can't elide the entire else clause because
> BOOST_ASSERT(false) is in it.
Do you agree that if the code was:
int x = 0;
if (!e) {
++x;
__assume(false);
}
cout << x;
then the compiler can elide the increment?
At this stage I am trying to convince myself that you understand the point
I was making, whether or not you agree with how it applies to
BOOST_ASSERT. __assume(false) can have retrospective effects.
-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.