Yes, there are lots of ways people can make mistakes and get strange things.

The difference with contracts is you get strange things without making mistakes.

John.

> On Oct 20, 2025, at 11:26 AM, Oliver Rosten via SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> But I don't think it's true that it's all plain-sailing today.
>
> You can compile one TU with fast-math and one without. The header code they consume is token-identical.
>
> There's no ODR violation but you can get differences depending on which version the linker chooses. And these differences need not be small. If the result of a floating-point calculation is used to determine if a grid cell is open or closed, tiny numerical differences can blow up into boolean yes/no differences.
>
> Isn't this something the community already lives with? Contracts may increase the surface area for such things but I don't think it's novel.
>
> O.
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 16:19, John Spicer <jhspicer_at_[hidden] <mailto:jhspicer_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>> By “do everything right” I meant “you don’t have an ODR violation”.
>>
>> Not that your program is perfect.
>>
>> I agree that in perfect programs you don’t need contracts.
>>
>> But for every actual program, people want contracts do what they can reasonably expect that they will do.
>>
>> John.
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2025, at 11:16 AM, Oliver Rosten via SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg21_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>>> Contracts add the new issue that you can do everything right and still get surprising behavior
>>>
>>> If you've done everything right then contracts are completely redundant in your program.
>>>
>>> O.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 16:14, John Spicer <jhspicer_at_[hidden] <mailto:jhspicer_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>> In general, if you do things correctly, you don’t need to understand ODR violations.
>>>>
>>>> If you do things incorrectly, it might be hard to figure out. But having header files mean different things in difference places is a long-standing issue that goes back to C and has always been hard to figure out.
>>>>
>>>> Contracts add the new issue that you can do everything right and still get surprising behavior and it is even harder to figure out because your tools won’t help you.
>>>>
>>>> John.
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 20, 2025, at 9:56 AM, Oliver Rosten <oliver.rosten_at_[hidden] <mailto:oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> PS Most people I teach have no prior idea what an ODR violation is.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 14:55, Oliver Rosten <oliver.rosten_at_[hidden] <mailto:oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>>>> That's a proof of existence but not of wide-spread usage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am honestly ignorant here. As far as I know the C++ ecosystem as a whole is not making rigorous use of things like this. But I may be wrong...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 14:53, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden] <mailto:ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 16:46, Oliver Rosten
>>>>>>> <oliver.rosten_at_[hidden] <mailto:oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Hi John,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I'm not convinced by this:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> No, it is not a pre-existing problem.
>>>>>>> >> Other than contracts, if you end up with different function definitions it is an ODR violation and your program is IFNDR and can be rejected by your tools.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > There's a difference between "can be in principle" and "is in general practice". Is it not the case that, in most instances, for all practical purposes there is no difference between an ODR violation that's IFNDR and the contracts mixed-mode: you get what the linker gives you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See, for example,
>>>>>>> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20160803-00/?p=94015
>>>>>>> See also https://maskray.me/blog/2022-11-13-odr-violation-detection
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SG21 mailing list
>>> SG21_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG21_at_[hidden]>
>>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
>>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11470.php
>>
> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11472.php