On Thursday 03 November 2005 16:49, random@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Mws wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday 01 November 2005 11:01, Dima Sorkin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>i'll think i'll implement my own templates for the std::<classes> with
> >>>extended safety.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Before you do it, try debug mode of STLport (www.stlport.org).
> >>It is almost paranoidal mode, it checks things you could not even
> >>fantasize about.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >> Dima.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >yes, i downloaded it and had a look at the source:
> >
> > void pop_back() {
> > --this->_M_finish;
> > _Destroy(this->_M_finish);
> > }
> >
> >the same unchecked stuff :)
> >
> >
> >
> Just to point it out, if you check the debugging version (it lives in
> debug/vector), the function looks like:
>
> void
> pop_back()
> {
> __glibcxx_check_nonempty();
> iterator __victim = end() - 1;
> __victim._M_invalidate();
> _Base::pop_back();
> }
>
> Some nice checking there :)
yes, sounds to be a solution. i will try out and see if a glibc/libcstd++ combination including
the debug stuff is able to run on an embedded system with limited resources. e.g. 32 mb ram.
regards marcel
