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?
