On Sep 16, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote: > 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?
That is certainly a worthy goal. Do you have a specific scenario in mind? I work best with a test case. Howard _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
