On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 20:58, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 20:55, Ville Voutilainen > <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 22:51, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > Tested x86_64-linux. > > > > > > Any reason not to do this? I don't think the assertions are useful to > > > catch implementation bugs where we access the contained value without > > > checking it - we should use tests for that. > > > > Looks good to me. > > Thanks. > > > > The current assertions also result in repeated invalid bug reports, such > > > as PR 91281, PR 101659, PR 102712, and PR 107894. > > > > I'm not sure moving the assertions helps with that, maybe some of > > those bug reports > > are caused by people not knowing how to enable the assertions. > > Oddly, I think *all* of them were people inspecting the code and > deciding there were no assertions (because they looked in the wrong > place). In some of those bug reports, _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and > _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS are explicitly mentioned, but they either only > looked at the code and didn't test it, or thought they were testing > with assertions enabled but failed to enable them somehow.
In one case, the same person who had added the assertions claimed there weren't any ;-)
