Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-27 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 27/11/19 06:37 +0100, François Dumont wrote: On 11/26/19 10:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/11/19 20:07 +0100, François Dumont wrote: Sure, I am about to do so. However I wasn't sure about this syntax before the commit so I had run the new 2_neg.cc with: make CXXFLAGS=-std=c++98 chec

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-26 Thread François Dumont
On 11/26/19 10:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/11/19 20:07 +0100, François Dumont wrote: Sure, I am about to do so. However I wasn't sure about this syntax before the commit so I had run the new 2_neg.cc with: make CXXFLAGS=-std=c++98 check-debug and it worked fine and still is ! The

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/11/19 20:07 +0100, François Dumont wrote: On 11/26/19 1:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/11/19 12:33 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 22/11/2019 18:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 22/11/19 18:38 +0100, François Dumont wrote:     I noticed that we are not checking that iterators are not

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-26 Thread François Dumont
On 11/26/19 9:49 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 26/11/2019 20:07, François Dumont wrote: However I wasn't sure about this syntax before the commit so I had run the new 2_neg.cc with: make CXXFLAGS=-std=c++98 check-debug and it worked fine and still is ! I also try -std=gnu++98 and made sure

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-26 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 26/11/2019 20:07, François Dumont wrote: However I wasn't sure about this syntax before the commit so I had run the new 2_neg.cc with: make CXXFLAGS=-std=c++98 check-debug and it worked fine and still is ! I also try -std=gnu++98 and made sure that pch had been updated by re-building libs

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-26 Thread François Dumont
On 11/26/19 1:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/11/19 12:33 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 22/11/2019 18:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 22/11/19 18:38 +0100, François Dumont wrote:     I noticed that we are not checking that iterators are not singular in valid_range. Moreover __check_singu

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/11/19 12:33 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 22/11/2019 18:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 22/11/19 18:38 +0100, François Dumont wrote:     I noticed that we are not checking that iterators are not singular in valid_range. Moreover __check_singular signature for pointers is not intercepti

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-26 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 22/11/2019 18:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 22/11/19 18:38 +0100, François Dumont wrote:     I noticed that we are not checking that iterators are not singular in valid_range. Moreover __check_singular signature for pointers is not intercepting all kind of pointers in terms of qualification.

Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22/11/19 18:38 +0100, François Dumont wrote: Hi     I noticed that we are not checking that iterators are not singular in valid_range. Moreover __check_singular signature for pointers is not intercepting all kind of pointers in terms of qualification.     I'd like to commit it next week b

[PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Improve valid_range check

2019-11-22 Thread François Dumont
Hi     I noticed that we are not checking that iterators are not singular in valid_range. Moreover __check_singular signature for pointers is not intercepting all kind of pointers in terms of qualification.     I'd like to commit it next week but considering we are in stage 3 I need proper a