This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] Make vector::at() assertion message more useful (try #2)
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 01:44:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Make vector::at() assertion message more useful (try #2)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <ye6qhae0qpf8 dot fsf at elbrus2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <5227C1AD dot 7090301 at oracle dot com> <CALoOobOX4R_nXcZZz-BT29VHkWc+nzQpq58uoZ61gJfzprp5EQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 09/05/2013 01:36 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Paolo Carlini <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
For sure concat_size would not be Ok, isn't uglified.
I didn't uglify it because it's inside __gnu_cxx namespace.
Does it still need uglification?
In any case it needs the __ in front. Like the rest of the library, to
_N("vector::_M_range_check: __n (which is %zu) >= "
"this->size() (which is %zu)"), __n, this->size());
That seems worth exploring, I agree.
Should snprintf_lite be in __gnu_cxx namespace, or be global and be called
__snprintf_lite(), or ...?
#define snprintf_lite 1
in user code. Well known issue...
I don't think we want to fiddle with libsupc++, for the time being at
least. src/c++98 seem ok to me.
Is the location of the out-of-line code in libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/ ok?
(Would probably be called snprintf_lite.cc or some such.)
Is the version I've assigned to the symbol -- GLIBCXX_3.4.20 -- ok?
Is a release out with 3.4.20? If not, it's fine. I think it's fine.