https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #2) > In any case, the failing test is actually passing -1, my understanding is > that that one should always assert no matter what we are passing as const > char*. Yes but I'm not going to add a check for -1 just to make some unit test pass. In real code (size_t)-2 or (size_t)(-some other value) is at least as likely. __glibcxx_assert(not in chromium tests) doesn't seem useful.
