On 09/27/2015 12:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Doh, sorry, I meant this instead i.e. the non-recursive mutex.
> +# if _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS && defined(PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP)
> +// Use an error-checking mutex type when assertions are enabled.
> +__native_type _M_mutex = P
On 26/09/15 22:49 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/26/2015 09:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Would changes like this be suitable for _FORTIFY_SOURCE?
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex
index 5e5ced1..074bf26 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mut
On 09/26/2015 09:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Would changes like this be suitable for _FORTIFY_SOURCE?
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex
> index 5e5ced1..074bf26 100644
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex
>
On 14/09/15 11:57 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/10/2015 06:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
There is quite a bit of documentation of _FORTIFY_SOURCE that explains
its effect on user code.
I think there are only random blog articles discussing aspects of it,
most of them slightly incorrect or o
On 09/10/2015 06:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> There is quite a bit of documentation of _FORTIFY_SOURCE that explains
>>> its effect on user code.
>>
>> I think there are only random blog articles discussing aspects of it,
>> most of them slightly incorrect or outdated.
>
> _FORTIFY_SOURCE is a
On 09/10/2015 10:38 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/10/2015 06:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/09/2015 09:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/08/2015 05:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I doubt we can achieve the complexity goals in all cases. I expect
that
for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) {
On 09/10/2015 06:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/09/2015 09:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 09/08/2015 05:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
I doubt we can achieve the complexity goals in all cases. I expect
that
for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) {
vector[i];
On 09/09/2015 09:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/08/2015 05:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I doubt we can achieve the complexity goals in all cases. I expect that
for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) {
vector[i];
}
is optimized away in default mode, but with _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS, it is
n
On 09/09/15 14:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 08/09/15 21:52 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Very good approach, I will start moving light checks from _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
implementation to normal one then.
Great, thanks. I *think* my patch got most of the lightweight checks
already.
We could ma
On 09/08/2015 05:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I doubt we can achieve the complexity goals in all cases. I expect that
>>
>> for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) {
>>vector[i];
>> }
>>
>> is optimized away in default mode, but with _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS, it is
>> not.
>>
>> The last time I look
On 08/09/15 21:52 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Very good approach, I will start moving light checks from _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
implementation to normal one then.
Great, thanks. I *think* my patch got most of the lightweight checks
already.
We could maybe include the irreflexivity checks, although it
On 07/09/2015 20:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
> changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
> instead of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (and making the latter imply the former).
>
> _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS is already used in Parall
On 08/09/15 17:00 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/07/2015 09:59 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 07/09/15 21:31 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jonathan Wakely:
This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
i
On 09/07/2015 09:59 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 07/09/15 21:31 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Jonathan Wakely:
>>
>>> This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
>>> changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
>>> instead of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (and mak
On 08/09/15 15:14 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Interesting. Is this mode ABI-compatible with the default mode?
Yes, that's the main reason I want to make this change.
> Should _FORTIFY_SOURCE imply _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS?
Yes, I think it should.
Hi,
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Interesting. Is this mode ABI-compatible with the default mode?
>
> Yes, that's the main reason I want to make this change.
>
> > Should _FORTIFY_SOURCE imply _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS?
>
> Yes, I think it should.
Then at least those assertions th
2015-09-07 22:10 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 07/09/15 20:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 07/09/15 21:04 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
>>> In the suggested doc changes:
>>>
>>> +When defined, _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS is defined
>>> +automatically, so all the assertions that ena
On 07/09/15 20:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 07/09/15 21:04 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
2015-09-07 20:27 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
instead of _GLIBCXX_DEB
On 07/09/15 21:31 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jonathan Wakely:
This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
instead of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (and making the latter imply the former).
Interesting. Is this mode
On 07/09/15 21:04 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
2015-09-07 20:27 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
instead of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (and making the latter imply the former).
_GL
* Jonathan Wakely:
> This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
> changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
> instead of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (and making the latter imply the former).
Interesting. Is this mode ABI-compatible with the default mode?
Should
2015-09-07 20:27 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
> changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
> instead of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (and making the latter imply the former).
>
> _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS is already used in Paral
This patch adds the "debug mode lite" we've been talking about, by
changing __glibcxx_assert to be activated by _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
instead of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (and making the latter imply the former).
_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS is already used in Parallel Mode for enabling
optional assertions (although s
23 matches
Mail list logo
