https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #16 from Paul Sanders ---
Interesting, I can see why you don't want to change the behaviour again. It's
just a shame it ever did anything other than SEGFAULT in the first place but as
you point out, it's been the way it is for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #12 from Paul Sanders ---
Sorry, I posted that in a bit of a rush. I took a proper look and the null
pointers that set badbit actually make excellent sense.
So I'll suggest a way out of the backwards compatibility conundrum when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #11 from Paul Sanders ---
> I think most users prefer invalid uses of pointers to fail loudly so they can
> be caught early. Few users expect output functions to fail, and even fewer
> bother to check for failures when writing to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #8 from Paul Sanders ---
Thanks for your comments. I can see there are two sides to this.
I was in the middle of composing the tract below. I'll include that anyway
because it took me ages to type. There's a bit at the end about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86129
--- Comment #4 from Paul Sanders ---
Sorry, that didn't happen on purpose. I edited the title, maybe that's what
caused it, or maybe it's because someone (Martin?) changed the component from
gcc to libstdc++.
Anyway, I won't post anything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #4 from Paul Sanders ---
@Johnathon Crashing the program is the right thing to do, because it means that
the developer (or the test department) will get to find out about the problem
before the customer does.
Does that help you see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86129
--- Comment #2 from Paul Sanders ---
The program should crash. That way, the developer (or the test department)
gets to find out about the problem before the customer.
I would have thought this was obvious.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
--- Comment #2 from Paul Sanders ---
Hi Martin,
Thanks very much for your prompt reply, and I completely agree with your
viewpoint.
I therefore hereby request that libstc++ stops behaving like that and just lets
the SIGSEGV happen. The
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: p.sanders at alpinesoft dot co.uk
Target Milestone: ---
Hi guys,
My first post here, hope I do things right.
The following code snippet just exits the program silently rather than
generating SIGBUS as you would expect
