On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 26/05/14 19:19 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >>> >>> It does look useful but I'm concerned about a proliferation of >>> container checks, we already have the libstdc++ Debug Mode >>> and I'd >>> like to see some of the lightweight checks from the Google branch >>> added to trunk too. >> >> Me too, but these checks are mostly orthogonal to the proposed >> annotations. > > > Thanks for clarifying that (and to Paul). > > >>> Aren't they still much cheaper than asan >>> instrumentation? >> >> >> Of course, they are much cheaper than asan. But they do not cover the case >> that motivated the container overflow annotations (when the contents >> of vector are accessed via >> vector<T>::data()) > > > Yes, I don't think I've ever seen that error in code I work with, but These errors are indeed much less frequent that others. But in our code base we've cleaned most of those popular ones and now chasing the long tail of infrequent types of bugs. Our current variant of libstdc++ patch (+asan) found quite a few of them.
> if Asan can be made to detect it then I'm in favour of the changes. Thanks, I'll work on the updated libstdc++ path then. --kcc > > Thanks. >
