This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: unsafe STL patch
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: François Dumont <francois dot cppdevs at free dot fr>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:44:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: unsafe STL patch
- References: <4B5F586C.email@example.com> <4B5F5C2A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B61F770.email@example.com> <4B61FA19.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B620F54.email@example.com> <4B620F96.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B635D2C.email@example.com> <4B6361AF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B673BFB.email@example.com>
> About the validity of the idea, aren't we going to lose debug mode
> power. IMO no we do not lose anything as we remove the debug layer
> around already validated iterators, we know that they belong to the
> same container and that __first <= __last so the loop in
> _M_initialize_dispatch cannot fail.
Ok, makes sense. Thus, I think the most urgent issue now would be the
Copyright assignment paperwork, because a patch covering all the
containers, range constructors and modifiers, is certainly rather
mechanical but very big. And of course I hope you would like to
contribute also outside debug-mode: frankly I can easily imagine more
urgent issues than speeding-up some of the debug-mode member functions...