Home > Archive > VC STL > April 2005 > stl and BoundsChecker
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
stl and BoundsChecker
|
|
| Ran Biron 2005-04-06, 12:52 pm |
| Does anyone know how to tell BoundsChecker to ignore STL bugs? I've spent
countless hours tracking bugs just to find out it was something the STL did.
RB
| |
| Peter Koch Larsen 2005-04-12, 4:00 am |
|
"Ran Biron" <IWouldPreferNotTo@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:%234t6aXnOFHA.1732@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone know how to tell BoundsChecker to ignore STL bugs? I've spent
> countless hours tracking bugs just to find out it was something the STL
> did.
>
> RB
>
>
Are you sure? In that case the bugs should be reported. Still i'm most sure
that those "bugs" aren't bugs!
/Peter
| |
| Igor Tandetnik 2005-04-12, 4:00 am |
| "Peter Koch Larsen" <pkl@mailme.dk> wrote in message
news:uDcRQLvPFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
> "Ran Biron" <IWouldPreferNotTo@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:%234t6aXnOFHA.1732@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> Are you sure? In that case the bugs should be reported. Still i'm
> most sure that those "bugs" aren't bugs!
When I used BoundsChecker 6.5 about three years ago, it complained on
every occurence of someVector.end(), claiming a pointer out of bounds.
Well, end() does indeed produce a one-past-the-end pointer - by design.
--
With best wishes,
Igor Tandetnik
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead. -- RFC 1925
| |
| Peter Koch Larsen 2005-04-12, 8:59 am |
|
"Igor Tandetnik" <itandetnik@mvps.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:eJI8cSvPFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Peter Koch Larsen" <pkl@mailme.dk> wrote in message
> news:uDcRQLvPFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
>
> When I used BoundsChecker 6.5 about three years ago, it complained on
> every occurence of someVector.end(), claiming a pointer out of bounds.
> Well, end() does indeed produce a one-past-the-end pointer - by design.
But in this case BoundsChecker report a non-error as an error so long as you
do not make any attempt to dereference the pointer. Thus the reporting
should be made to the company in charge of BoundsChecker, not to the
developer of the STL-library.
/Peter
> --
> With best wishes,
> Igor Tandetnik
>
> With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
> necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
> land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
> overhead. -- RFC 1925
>
| |
| Igor Tandetnik 2005-04-12, 4:01 pm |
| "Peter Koch Larsen" <pkl@mailme.dk> wrote in message
news:%23RF2sV0PFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> "Igor Tandetnik" <itandetnik@mvps.org> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:eJI8cSvPFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> But in this case BoundsChecker report a non-error as an error so long
> as you do not make any attempt to dereference the pointer. Thus the
> reporting should be made to the company in charge of BoundsChecker,
> not to the developer of the STL-library.
Yes, of course. I guess I've subconciously altered the meaning of the
original question to fit my understanding of the problem. Now that I
reread the question, it does seem the OP blames STL, not BoundsChecker.
To reiterate, STL is fine, but BoundsChecker sometimes (well, rather
often) produces spurious error reports on code that uses STL.
--
With best wishes,
Igor Tandetnik
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead. -- RFC 1925
|
|
|
|
|