On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 12:56, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>
> On Friday, 1 April 2022 13:33:42 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Matthias didn't like my Princess Bride easter egg :-)
> > Would the attached be better?
>
> LGTM.
OK, thanks to everybody who commented. I've pushed that to trunk now.
On Friday, 1 April 2022 13:33:42 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Matthias didn't like my Princess Bride easter egg :-)
> Would the attached be better?
LGTM.
--
──
Dr. Matthias Kretz https://mattkretz
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 19:21, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 17:03, Marc Glisse via Libstdc++
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Matthias Kretz via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>
> >>> I like it. But I'd like it even more if we could
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 17:03, Marc Glisse via Libstdc++
wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Matthias Kretz via Gcc-patches wrote:
I like it. But I'd like it even more if we could have
#elif defined _UBSAN
__ubsan_invoke_ub("reached std::unreachable()"
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 17:03, Marc Glisse via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Matthias Kretz via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > I like it. But I'd like it even more if we could have
> >
> > #elif defined _UBSAN
> >__ubsan_invoke_ub("reached std::unreachable()");
> >
> > But to my knowledge
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 16:51, Matthias Kretz via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> I like it. But I'd like it even more if we could have
>
> #elif defined _UBSAN
> __ubsan_invoke_ub("reached std::unreachable()");
>
> But to my knowledge UBSAN has no hooks for the library like this (yet).
As far as I know,
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Matthias Kretz via Gcc-patches wrote:
I like it. But I'd like it even more if we could have
#elif defined _UBSAN
__ubsan_invoke_ub("reached std::unreachable()");
But to my knowledge UBSAN has no hooks for the library like this (yet).
-fsanitize=undefined already repla
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 17:50 +0200, Matthias Kretz via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I like it. But I'd like it even more if we could have
>
> #elif defined _UBSAN
> __ubsan_invoke_ub("reached std::unreachable()");
>
> But to my knowledge UBSAN has no hooks for the library like this
> (yet).
UBSAN can
I like it. But I'd like it even more if we could have
#elif defined _UBSAN
__ubsan_invoke_ub("reached std::unreachable()");
But to my knowledge UBSAN has no hooks for the library like this (yet).
and...
On Thursday, 31 March 2022 17:30:29 CEST Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> diff
This is a tiny C++23 feature that I plan to add for GCC 12. Does anybody
have any comments on the choices below in terms of when to make reaching
std::unreachable do an assert/trap/unreachable?
My thoughts on avoiding the overhead in the _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS case is
that this differs from e.g. asse
10 matches
Mail list logo
