Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WsA4J-00024t-E6
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:13:23 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WsA4H-0006El-H3
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:13:23 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn18so6168171igb.12
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.92.42 with SMTP id cj10mr6583913igb.34.1401883995680;
	Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 05:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <538EF81D.9060301@stud.uni-saarland.de>
References: <1401822421.27942.YahooMailNeo@web124505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CANEZrP18nf0oK6fbnE59opXxfMdwiOOu4v99iGyXyGo_7NLuYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTM30oFLGpkCwqM5Wf-Crmz5s05X-uWXAiGy9u43nbKvQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<538EF81D.9060301@stud.uni-saarland.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:13:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAJUDTU6T33-y6i3Sj6=S4D2B=Sjo5neo3Pg7oh37kGtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jannis Froese <s9jafroe@stud.uni-saarland.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10d0b594415104fb018dde
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WsA4H-0006El-H3
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error "Bitcoin cannot be compiled
 without assertions." <<<<NOT
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:13:23 -0000

--047d7b10d0b594415104fb018dde
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jannis Froese <
s9jafroe@stud.uni-saarland.de> wrote:

>  I think most concerns about the current use of asserts would be resolved
> if the currently used asserts would be changed to a nicer definition which
> is independent of NDEBUG, and a second class of debugging asserts would be
> introduced, which is exclusively for expensive, redundant checks and is
> disabled by NDEBUG.
>

Sounds good to me.

Wladimir

--047d7b10d0b594415104fb018dde
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jannis Froese <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:s9jafroe@stud.uni-saarland.de" target="_blank">s9jafroe@stud.uni-saarland.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div>
      I think most concerns about the current use of asserts would be
      resolved if the currently used asserts would be changed to a nicer
      definition which is independent of NDEBUG, and a second class of
      debugging asserts would be introduced, which is exclusively for
      expensive, redundant checks and is disabled by NDEBUG.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sounds good to me.<br><br>Wladimir<br></div></div></div></div>

--047d7b10d0b594415104fb018dde--