[PATCH] Add a 'no-asserts' requirement option to LIT.

[Owen Anderson]

> On Mar 29, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't understand the requested change...
> 
> We already have the ability to say 'REQUIRES: asserts' when checking things only enabled in asserts builds.
> 
> It sounds like you want to check for things only enabled in *no-*asserts builds? I'm surprised any such things exist. My inclination is to say "we shouldn't have no-asserts emit data that we don't emit in asserts".

Our on-line compiler is designed to be both fast and fault-tolerant.  We place pre-conditions on the input that we expect our client to meet in order to maintain acceptable compile time guarantees, and we want to assert on those pre-conditions in a +asserts build.  However, violations of these preconditions are generally recoverable, at a compile time cost, and we want the production on-line compiler (-asserts) never to crash on an end-user’s device.

—Owen