Re: performance regressions in 15.0 [What should be the case for 15.0-RELEASE: WITH_ASSEERT_DEBUG or WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG ?]
- Reply: Mark Millard : "Re: performance regressions in 15.0 [What should be the case for 15.0-RELEASE: WITH_ASSEERT_DEBUG or WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG ?]"
- In reply to: Mark Millard : "Re: performance regressions in 15.0 [The Microsoft Dev Kit 2023 buildworld took about 6 minutes less time for jemalloc 5.3.0, not more, for non-debug contexts]"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2025 19:02:04 UTC
https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/blame/share/mk/bsd.opts.mk?h=releng/15.0 shows:
__DEFAULT_YES_OPTIONS = \
ASSERT_DEBUG \
. . .
Looks like it has been that way going back
into 2014. It suggests that care needs to
have been taken to not have added any
expensive asserts, likely including in
contributed software, such as jemalloc
updates and others?
This is a difference with what I tested, by
the way:
WITH_MALLOC_PRODUCTION=
WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG=
WITHOUT_PTHREADS_ASSERTIONS=
WITHOUT_LLVM_ASSERTIONS=
I have not tested how much of a difference
it makes.
For reference:
WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG
Compile programs and libraries without the assert(3) checks.
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com