https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact I'm not really sure there's anything concrete that can be done here.
"Check stuff!" isn't very helpful. We already check stuff.
Specific suggestions for additional checks are useful. Overly general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Checking all possible preconditions isn't practical anyway, so isn't going to
happen, so we don't need knobs to control that.
Not everything can be checked, at some point users need to write correct code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #4 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> So I'm strongly opposed to that part of the suggestion. Either you get all
> the ABI-preserving debug checks, or none.
Checking all (possible) preconditions without any limit on the introduced
comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #2)
> > Not everything. Some Expects preconditions cannot be tested (e.g. that
> > pointer points to an array of at least N objects).
>
> True. I suppose it's sufficient t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> Not everything. Some Expects preconditions cannot be tested (e.g. that
> pointer points to an array of at least N objects).
True. I suppose it's sufficient to have that memory accessed (somehow
ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
