On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26/05/14 19:19 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>>>
>>> It does look useful but I'm concerned about a proliferation of
>>> container checks, we already have the libstdc++ Debug Mode
>>> and I'd
>>> like to see some of the lightweight
On 26/05/14 19:19 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
It does look useful but I'm concerned about a proliferation of
container checks, we already have the libstdc++ Debug Mode
and I'd
like to see some of the lightweight checks from the Google branch
added to trunk too.
Me too, but these checks a
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I see that the patch on the Google branch removes some of the
> > __google_stl_debug_vector checks -- are they considered no longer
> > necessary/useful with asan?
>
> Th
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26/05/14 17:40 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>>
>> Would you consider a patch similar to [4] for libstdc++ trunk?
>> If yes, any comments on the patch?
>
>
> + // When sanitizer annotataions are off, avoid bazillion of no-op
>
On 26/05/14 15:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
It does look useful but I'm concerned about a proliferation of
container checks, we already have the libstdc++ Debug Mode, and I'd
like to see some of the lightweight checks from the Google branch
added to trunk too.
I see that the patch on the Go
On 26/05/14 17:40 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Would you consider a patch similar to [4] for libstdc++ trunk?
If yes, any comments on the patch?
+ // When sanitizer annotataions are off, avoid bazillion of no-op
I'd rather see the member functions use our
Hello,
Some of std::vector misuses are very hard to find with internal STL checks
or using external tools (such as Valgrind or AddressSanitizer [1]).
Example:
std::vector v(4);
v.reserve(8);
int *p = v.data();
p[6] = 0; // BOOM
We call these bugs "container overflow" [2,6] and we've deve
