https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I haven't seen a proof that libstdc++'s std::sort can't be made more robust
without losing performance. Maybe cheap range checks can be done conditionally
when _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS is defined, or maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Generally I hate the idea to punish innocent programs (making them slower) just
to satisfy buggy programs. If it's due to Hyrum's rule then fine, but here
Hyrum rule does not apply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Engelhardt from comment #4)
> >And in upcoming Glibc-2.39 there will be a major reimplementation of qsort
>
> Even so, a recent commit strongly suggests that sticking to array bounds
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
Jan Engelhardt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
