This enables lightweight checks for the __glibcxx_requires_valid_range and __glibcxx_requires_string_len macros when _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS is defined. By using __builtin_object_size we can check whether the end of the range is part of the same object as the start of the range, and detect problems like in PR 89927. libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: * include/debug/debug.h (__valid_range_p, __valid_range_n): New inline functions using __builtin_object_size to check ranges delimited by pointers. [_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS] (__glibcxx_requires_valid_range): Use __valid_range_p. [_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS] (__glibcxx_requires_string_len): Use __valid_range_n. The first patch allows us to detect bugs like string("foo", "bar"), like in PR 89927. Debug mode cannot currently detect this. The new check uses the compiler built-in to detect when the two arguments are not part of the same object. This assumes we're optimizing and the compiler knows the values of the pointers. If it doesn't, then the function just returns true and should inline to nothing. I would like to also enable that for Debug Mode, otherwise we have checks that work for _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS but not for _GLIBCXX_DEBUG. I tried to make that work with the second patch attached to this mail, but it doesn't abort for the example in PR 89927. I think puttingthe checks inside the "real" debug checking functions is too many levels of inlining and the compiler "forgets" the pointer values. I think the first patch is worth committing. It should add no overhead for optimized builds, and diagnoses some bugs that we do not diagnose today. I'm less sure about the second, since it doesn't actually help. Maybe the second one should wait for Siddhesh's __builtin_dynamic_object_size to land on trunk. Taking this idea further, we could do something similar for __glibcxx_requires_string, which is currently almost useless (it only checks if the pointer is null) but could be changed to use __valid_range_n(_String, char_traits<...>::length(_String)) so that we can diagnose non-null terminated strings (because the length that char-traits would give us would be larger than the size that __builtin_object_size would give us). Thoughts?