https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #0)
> It either crashes on past-end access, or produces a warning (depending on
> whether it's handled as a past-end access or UB).
No, that's not how undefined behaviour works. You are wrong to expect a crash,
and not all cases of undefined behaviour can be detected reliably.
I don't think this case can be caught by sanitizers. As Marc said (and as I
suggested on your previous bug report) you should use -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG to catch
these kind of bugs.
