On Tuesday 06 September 2011 23:09:17, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 6 September 2011 22:58, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't mean for vector::begin and the other functions in that patch,
I mean in general for
Greetings,
This patch adds a lightweight self-consistency check to many vector
operations. Google issue 5246356.
Ok for google/integration branch?
Thanks,
--
2011-09-06 Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com
* include/bits/stl_vector.h (__is_valid): New function.
(begin,
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
This patch adds a lightweight self-consistency check to many vector
operations. Google issue 5246356.
Sorry, forgot to mention: tested by doing bootstrap and make check on
Linux/x86_64.
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:28, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
Greetings,
This patch adds a lightweight self-consistency check to many vector
operations. Google issue 5246356.
Ok for google/integration branch?
Thanks,
--
2011-09-06 Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:54, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
OK. Any reason not to send this (or a variant) to mainline?
AFAIU, mainline is not interested -- there is already a debug mode (enabled
by
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:54, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
OK. Any reason not to send this (or a variant) to mainline?
AFAIU,
On 6 September 2011 19:01, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
But this is something to discuss with libstdc++ (CC'd).
Sure. If the parallel debug mode is more tenable now, I am all for it.
I don't think anything has changed. I'm not excited by the idea of
another debug mode, especially not this patch,
On 6 September 2011 20:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
What's a dangling vector anyway? One that has been moved from?
Apparently not, since a moved-from vector would pass __valid() (as
indeed it should)
So I'm quite curious what bugs this catches. The existing debug mode
catches some fairly
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2011 20:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
What's a dangling vector anyway? One that has been moved from?
Apparently not, since a moved-from vector would pass __valid() (as
indeed it should)
So I'm quite
On 6 Sep 2011, at 21:19, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
On 6 September 2011 20:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
What's a dangling vector anyway? One that has been moved from?
Apparently not, since a moved-from vector
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
for (it = v-begin(); it != v-end(); ++it) // Oops!
Eurgh, the occurrence of delete in anything except a destructor is a
code smell that should have led someone to find those bugs anyway!
Obviously the code above
On 6 September 2011 21:52, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
for (it = v-begin(); it != v-end(); ++it) // Oops!
Eurgh, the occurrence of delete in anything except a destructor is a
code smell that should have led someone to
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
I don't mean for vector::begin and the other functions in that patch,
I mean in general for member functions of any type. There are plenty
of functions that wouldn't crash when called through a null pointer.
But even
13 matches
Mail list logo
