On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi,
Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> ha scritto: __throw_out_of_range(__N("vector::_M_range_check"));
+ {
+ char __s[256];
+ __builtin_snprintf(__s, sizeof(__s),
+ __N("vector::_M_range_check: %zu >= %zu"),
+ __n, this->size());
+ __throw_out_of_range(__s);
+ }
The idea makes sense, but while we are at it I think the message could be more clear, say what the two numbers are. Also, I don't think we can unconditionally call snprintf, it's C99 and supported targets lack it. Maybe with some libiberty magic? I don't think such magic automagically triggers when __builtin_snprintf is expanded, or does it? Please investigate that.
I agree that we can't embark a significant IO library as part of a purely
data structure components.
Furthermore, __builtin_snprintf doesn't always expand to a
compiler magic -- it can be a normal function call.
This would be a regression, not an improvement.