[SERVER-36177] Evaluate feasibility and impact of adding _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS to our builds Created: 18/Jul/18 Updated: 06/Dec/22 Resolved: 25/Mar/21 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Build |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Andrew Morrow (Inactive) | Assignee: | [DO NOT ASSIGN] Backlog - Server Development Platform Team (SDP) (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | former-toolchain-epic | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||
| Assigned Teams: |
Server Development Platform
|
||||
| Sprint: | Dev Platform 2021-04-05 | ||||
| Participants: | |||||
| Description |
|
Per If we find that the performance hit is not acceptable, we may still be able to apply it in our DEBUG builders. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Andrew Morrow (Inactive) [ 25/Mar/21 ] |
|
Having taken a slightly closer look at this flag, it appears to amount to enabling bounds checking for things like std::vector. In essence, it would turn std::vector::operator[] into std::vector::at. I don't think that is something we would want to do in our production code. There might be value to doing it in our DEBUG builds, but in that case we really want _GLIBCXX_DEBUG. |