On 09/16/2011 02:40 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote: > On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote: > >> AMDG >> >> On 09/16/2011 01:48 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote: >>> If another container gets constructed at the same address, then there will >>> be a collision in the database. I could probably put some checks in to >>> detect that situation. Maybe just silently reuse the database entry in >>> that case. >>> >> >> There's one sequence I can think of that would >> not be easily detectable. >> >> construct at address X with debugging. >> destroy at X without debugging. >> construct at X without debugging. >> use X >> >> In this case the new container/iterator will >> silently inherit any information from the old one. > > We've dropped off list. I'm not sure if that was your intention. >
It wasn't. I just hit the wrong button, because I'm not used to posting to this list. > And yeah, I'm not currently seeing a way to solve all the problems that > construction/destruction in different translation units causes. The best > thing we may be able to do is just document: don't do that. > It isn't necessarily all or nothing. Would it be possible to set it up so that it might silently fail to flag some errors, but never flag correct code? In Christ, Steven Watanabe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
