This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch][google/integration] Add lightweight checks to vector::begin et. al. (issue4973065)

On 6 September 2011 21:52, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Wakely <> wrote:
>>> ?for (it = v->begin(); it != v->end(); ++it) ?// Oops!
>> Eurgh, the occurrence of "delete" in anything except a destructor is a
>> code smell that should have led someone to find those bugs anyway!
>> Obviously the code above is a trivial example, but it's unforgivable
>> to write that
> I can assure you that the actual code that exhibited these bugs was much
> subtler than that, and the bugs were not immediately obvious.
> Sometimes they were not immediately obvious even after running Valgrind
> on the buggy code and getting allocation/deletion/access stack traces with
> source corrdinates.
>>> We can't (easily) catch the general problem. This patch allows us to easily
>>> catch this particular instance of it.
>> Sure, but so does adding "assert(this);" at the top of every member
> Sorry, no. Adding "assert(this);" does not catch any new bugs (at least
> not on Linux) -- the code would have immediately crashed on zero-page
> dereference anyway.

I don't mean for vector::begin and the other functions in that patch,
I mean in general for member functions of any type. There are plenty
of functions that wouldn't crash when called through a null pointer.
But even std:vector has member functions like that, such as max_size.

Anyway, I think we've concluded the patch is not suitable for general
use, as it has limited value without a debugging allocator that makes
pages dirty after free.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]