https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
>
> > No, that's not how undefined behaviour works. You are wrong to expect a
> > crash
>
> No, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #7 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
@Jonathan Wakely I think you accidentally closed the report, would you mind to
reopen it (I'm not seeing why would it be "invalid", people even confirmed that
more support for std containers is being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #6 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> No, that's not how undefined behaviour works. You are wrong to expect a crash
No, in context of the report I'm not. You're correct this is not how UB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is the current way to add many checks to libstdc++, and it
> detects this.
Oh, cool, I'll make use of it, thanks for the hint!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is the current way to add many checks to libstdc++, and it
detects this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
Btw, worth noting that clang 8.0.1 does not handle it either.
