dexonsmith abandoned this revision. dexonsmith added subscribers: ldionne, EricWF. dexonsmith added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: ributzka.
In D17053#632700 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D17053#632700>, @EricWF wrote: > Maybe if we want to improve the failure mode we can add a > `_LIBCPP_ASSERT(__new_last <= __end, "invalid range")`? I suspect this assertion would get optimized out, since if `__new_last > __end` it's undefined behaviour to compare them. Whereas the loop condition won't get optimized away. @ldionne, pointing you at this in case you have an idea (maybe specializing for raw pointers?), but I'm not planning to move this forward. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D17053/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D17053 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
