From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,335027991b3a97ec
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Debug code
Date: 1996/03/19
Message-ID: <4imhsm$v0v@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143273217
distribution: world
references: <1996Mar14.223326.13730@nosc.mil> <4iborm$a27@dfw.dfw.net>
 <dewar.827152644@schonberg> <DoGxo5.n2s@world.std.com>
 <dewar.827166947@schonberg>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.827166947@schonberg>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
writes about turning off assertions: 

|>                                                                  We have
|> done it much more than once, and have a pretty good idea of how much
|> time it saves in the front end (hint: substantial :-)

Not surprising.  In the project I'm currently working on, we have no
compunctions about adding assertions that invoke O(n**2) functions to
check the overall validity of a large and complex data structure.
Does wonders for assigning blame for a bug to a particular phase of the
program!

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com