https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56109
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=86843, | |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=56103 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > The __google_stl_* checks were added by these commits ... > > Strict weak ordering checks in algos and RB trees: > 8cc511b5e5c0814584644c90cb0d65d27182eddd > > Invariant checks and range checks in vector<bool>: > ceeb7c3b17883b21f523ab0bef937f654b12eceb > > Range checks in deque: 0681de38f1f402ad5f1fd9cf9959f304c36f7c10 > > Non-empty checks in vector: 2b4e2a67ff643ebdc4dababd95010699918ad9e0 > Dead stores in vector dtor: e1a3b2e088d16544b6b64e483e12ae77a813a274 > Invariant checks in vector: 7a058129926f4838bc1344f3674c1a35052a03e4 > Range checks in vector and vstring, scribbling in cleared vstring: > 13480920300b3cf5f09d408fe249c873fbef1ee0 > > All the range checks and non-empty checks should be already enabled by > _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS. > > The invariant checking and strict weak order checks may be too expensive to > add to _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS. But see PR 86843. > We could consider adding the dead stores in the destructors to wipe out the > memory, so that subsequent accesses fail fast. Those stores should be > optimised away so will have no cost in optimised builds, but might help in > -O0 builds when debugging. That's PR 56103. So is there any reason to keep this PR open? Are there still checks we should copy from the google branch?