C/C++ an int value that isn't a number?
assert, c, c++, int, numbers
Solution
As I've seen so ugly things in my life, it could be explained if perform_calc() has a buffer overrun that overwrites the return address in the stack. When the function ends, the overwritten address is recovered from the stack and set to the current PC, leading to a jump maybe in another area of the program, apparently past the assertion calls.
Although this is a very remote possibility, so it's what you are showing.
Another possibility is that someone did an ugly macro trick. check if you have things like
#define assert
or some colleague put something like this in a header while you were at the restroom
#define < ==
#define > ==
As suggested in another answer, check with gcc -E to see what code is actually compiled.
Problem
Can this ever happen ? 3 asserts, where one should activate. ``` int nr = perform_calc(); assert( nr == 0); assert( nr > 0); assert( nr < 0); ``` Can there be a case when the program doesn't activate the asserts on g++ 3.4.4. And no I don't have the possibility to change the code in order to print the number out in case the asserts don't activate. Any ideas? Edit: After reading several comments I was forced to edit. Show the code? why are you doing this stupid thing ? I don't believe it ! Where is it used ? From my question it should have been obvious that I will not post/change the code because of several possible reasons: - I'm a total beginner and is ashamed of the code (no crime there, sure it makes answering to the question much easier if I did post it) - I was asked to help out a friend with only little information (and no I did not ask him why can't you check the number returned, or why can't he just add a breakpoint). - I am writing my code in emacs without any compiler and is sending it to a remote server that compiles it, runs it and only can return failed asserts if something goes wrong. If you believed that I was making a prank or a hoax you should have voted for a closure of the thread instead. I would have been perfectly fine with that. But adding unnecessary comments like this only made me want an "attitude" flag to be implemented. I want to thank others for their comments and answers that actually tried to explain and answered my question.