> To avoid confusion with compiler cutting asserts away on release
> builds, how about using abort() instead of assert(0)?
The compiler does not cut away printf.
This is the output I forgot to add in the mail 7 minutes ago:
Lua 5.4
passed line 94
passed line 104
passed line 115
passed line 126
passed line 137
dead
passed line 149
Test the test!
ERROR in line 153: is = 1, expected = 2
The final ERROR line tests that the test will trigger.
So I can be definitely sure, this is not a DEBUG vs. RELEASE or abort() vs. assert() issue.
On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 19:54 +0100, bel wrote:
>
> #define UNREACHABLE {printf("Reached unreachable code at %u\n",
> __LINE__); assert(0);}
To avoid confusion with compiler cutting asserts away on release
builds, how about using abort() instead of assert(0)?
--
v <v19930312@gmail.com>
