From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from NAM04-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam08olkn2043.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.46.43]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED8963858036 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 14:17:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org ED8963858036 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=MLkiYkSqMKZFES6rHMNbiOkAHLGVViKjcpEjN9IdSePM9fRg1xG+Y4I2tmu+JHW4sPapU88rwCI2TYJ9PXTJ8nQnigV60GBoQYqs7Rktv4ww+yDumgwHuOIujnFcwYVnvfm5Aqkrh9mjkkipZ2hBAmya+vpDQr0bFEDVpRUCEcWG023KtYAtMjPF4eRGPhLigYvUTLvlZ4OTda4tdg+ASUOLGCQhh34gFDn3w+AEvja3AZ35F4Hgenu4p1nuS0k1p85XoslE6etbKLoiR9VmuwcFvz0P6IIFCthQJCML0zZt3xOy0/my87YHOJpVoonjiOHxU83hm2Jr9TB1SHqefg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=lPFPNkmvSalK3Uvs/CNCThZtpoBqdPZuo2Yboh8dzKM=; b=F2j70f8VhdFdfg6ahi3chiA+HrTzE2dbtYyYJw5JNKPz3/XX3vVKgCCOarn0mTLyFO8B9o2wOcHE6hZZ6zmVcGiMv41tdaiMDV3F4FMrQMXZ2hB8B0LnNZYEeFYuE3VRG+J7BTB0RYoNKlxR60SPfK5f4oIbr4phLKKRPcjd4EBAgtgYf5AQhxbP2DSuhSWDkUBkTFvjfdbUFEgdHWxmozmysB6hX0TTXGT/kN4CZYv5cxurHHIA8whF2AAK4q8c0OQg/cRL40AiZqtsfIyUsxzMPH9X7LMfsWOvuZ0LKqBG+PhxIM5P5+y/hp7caCVU3BlXvkjTI3rVrUvYTr6pZQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none Received: from CH2PR02MB6522.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:610:36::15) by CH2PR02MB6631.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:610:aa::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4669.11; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 14:17:45 +0000 Received: from CH2PR02MB6522.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::107:7495:fca3:9171]) by CH2PR02MB6522.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::107:7495:fca3:9171%4]) with mapi id 15.20.4669.011; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 14:17:45 +0000 From: sotrdg sotrdg To: unlvsur unlvsur via Libstdc++ Subject: Re: [PATCH] print extended assertion failures to stderr Thread-Topic: [PATCH] print extended assertion failures to stderr Thread-Index: AQHX0YMB+kvrrs/s10OzzDG3hZjh26vzY+UAgAABEQuAAADvgIAAA+ZI Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 14:17:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [Tq/O/MTd0uYJAWBvBUdUjIY23d9ZmaN7] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 003562d3-eb51-4885-7bc2-08d99f9ddf2c x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CH2PR02MB6631: x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: sct-15-20-3174-20-msonline-outlook-cec7a.templateTenant X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CH2PR02MB6522.namprd02.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 003562d3-eb51-4885-7bc2-08d99f9ddf2c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Nov 2021 14:17:45.1745 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH2PR02MB6631 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 14:17:49 -0000 i do have other arguments like no longer use none std compiler specific ext= ensions or allow user to replace that function with linker in some environm= ents. Get Outlook for Android ________________________________ From: Jonathan Wakely Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 10:01:27 AM To: sotrdg sotrdg Subject: Re: [PATCH] print extended assertion failures to stderr On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 at 13:59, sotrdg sotrdg wrote: It reduces one function call Who cares if aborting the program takes an additional function call?! and reduces compilation time for each translation unit. That's a valid argument. As is the fact that __replacement_assert won't get= inlined into its callers, keeping them smaller. But "reduces on function call" seems an absurd thing to care about in this = case.