From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4B7C83858D32; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 16:06:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4B7C83858D32 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1698941184; bh=9vN/A78PYIZAKEOsgMKgwrLWpEqQ+W1P6vFJMpoIvRQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ixkYAgpEhpY4isINPn++1XzdK5gR68lTZW3Q08u7rajtBnCChnSrutDVKeLwEotKp RJFc2HseBuy/qVlqwEAl1BDkjwxc8XiZPyteAqcogA2njYxRDDr0tG0Zj0GvdmDMN3 Vr5L6szCyk1zI9+2kRultl0Mek6+1D/zlIle8+j4= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/112314] Missing index assertions in basic_string_view Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 16:06:23 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112314 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #2) > In any case, the failing test is actually passing -1, my understanding is > that that one should always assert no matter what we are passing as const > char*. Yes but I'm not going to add a check for -1 just to make some unit test pas= s. In real code (size_t)-2 or (size_t)(-some other value) is at least as likel= y. __glibcxx_assert(not in chromium tests) doesn't seem useful.=