Assurance is based on redundant checking -- of everything -- contracts,
hardware, compilers, static analysis, etc. Whatever is checked, it's
checked more than once in more than one way. The whole point is that when
that's all done, you're "bug free" (in a statistical sense).

Therefore any bugs caused by either the expression in the contract
statement, or in the programmer's understanding of build modes, or the
build engineer's understanding of the programmer's code, or a bug in the
compiler itself -- you name it -- are statistically not not possible in the
long run.

Let me give you an example: let's say a check is incorrectly ignored as per
P3835 -- this is not a problem for Functionally Safe processes. Why? Let's
say the incorrectly ignored check checks for nullptr. The program now has
UB (like so many C++ programs).

Yet somehow, when the program runs all its unit tests -- against the odds
-- the UB does not cause any *unit tests* to fail! And somehow against the
odds the UB does not cause any *integration test* to fail! And somehow
against the odds the UB does not cause any *system tests* to fail! And
somehow against the odds the UB does not cause the *fuzzing tests* to fail!
Oh my.

But we're Safety Critical, so we don't stop there: we now have *millions of
real world hours of simulation* to run. And after that we have *thousands
of real world hours of real world environmental testing* to run. *Our UB
eventually manifests*, long before it was unsafe, and a fix is merged
immediately. Done.

The odds that our null pointer check was a valid code path and did not
exhibit any failure is vanishingly small. This is what I mean when I say we
have decades of experience -- this is why your plane doesn't fall out of
the sky.

So -- Tom's point is that contract checking helps, but is in no way
sufficient for Functional Safety -- it's all that testing that's important
for Functional Safety. Functional Safety is a **process** that's
implemented by an **organization** -- and P2900 makes that easier for them,
and it's better than macros.

Cheers,

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 7:15 PM Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [Ryan]
>
> - Contracts -- macro or P2900 -- are one of those best practices.
>
>
>
> Then, let’s me rephrase my question: How does P2900 supports “implementing best
> practices that drive towards a statistical level of assurance” without one
> depending “on contract checks as a foundational aspect of [that] functional
> safety”?
>
>
>
> - Language Safety is also one of those best practices -- however --
> while somewhat necessary, Language Safety is definitely not remotely
> sufficient.
>
>
>
> You might be right, but let’s not distract ourselves into “language
> safety” label just yet. Let’s focus on what can be me understand the
> various statements being put forward.
>
>
>
> -- Gaby
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2025 6:59 PM
> *To:* sg15_at_[hidden]
> *Cc:* sg21_at_[hidden]; Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>; Tom
> Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>; John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]>
> *Subject:* Re: [isocpp-sg15] [isocpp-sg21] P3835 -- Different contract
> checking for different libraries
>
>
>
> No *feature* ever achieves Functional Safety -- an organization does when
> they implement best practices that drive towards a statistical level of
> assurance.
>
>
>
> Contracts -- macro or P2900 -- are one of those best practices. P2900 is
> regarded by man as an improvement over macros by those who work in this
> space. P2900 (or something very similar) helps companies implement best
> practices more efficiently, not to mention the ecosystem for static (or AI)
> analysis.
>
>
>
> Language Safety is also one of those best practices -- however -- while
> somewhat necessary, Language Safety is definitely not remotely sufficient.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 6:26 PM Gabriel Dos Reis via SG15 <
> sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> [Tom]
>
> - If you are depending on contract checks as a foundational aspect of
> your functional safety, then you have not achieved functional safety.
>
>
>
> Interesting. How do contracts (as in P2900) achieve functional safety?
>
>
>
> -- Gaby
>
>
>
> *From:* SG15 <sg15-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Tom Honermann
> via SG15
> *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2025 5:43 PM
> *To:* sg21_at_[hidden]
> *Cc:* Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>; sg15_at_[hidden]; John
> Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]>; Contracts SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden]>
> *Subject:* Re: [isocpp-sg15] [isocpp-sg21] P3835 -- Different contract
> checking for different libraries
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2025, at 4:56 PM, John Spicer via SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> Macros are different from contracts because:
>
>
>
> 1. You can make sure that you get consistent behavior when the contracts
> are in headers (the mail topic of this thread).
>
>
>
> 2. You can choose whether or not exceptions are mapped into contract
> violations
>
>
>
> 3. You can choose the violation handler that you want to be used
>
>
>
> 4. Expressions silently change meaning (constification)
>
>
>
> 5. Because of #2, you don’t necessarily end up with massive code for each
> contract check
>
>
>
> 6. Different pieces of code can use different semantics in a transparent
> mechanism.
>
>
>
> They don’t address the needs of Functional Safety because you don’t know
> whether they will actually be checked in any given case.
>
>
>
> If you are depending on contract checks as a foundational aspect of your
> functional safety, then you have not achieved functional safety.
>
>
>
> Tom.
>
>
>
>
>
> John.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2025, at 4:08 PM, Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> They are comparable because they both address the needs of Functional
> Safety as per p3578 <http://wg21.link/p3578>. SG23 took a poll on whether
> they're better than macros see P3297 <http://wg21.link/P3297>.
>
>
>
> I think it's not a leap of logic that EWG has strong consensus to pass
> P2900 precisely because they feel it's strictly better than macros.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 12:58 PM John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> We have never taken a poll of whether P2900 is better then macro solutions.
>
>
>
> Could you explain why you think contracts and macro-based solutions are
> comperable?
>
>
>
> John.
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2025, at 3:09 PM, Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I’m saying we have decades of experience with macro based systems, which
> defines the floor of features/expectations. The consensus is P2900 is
> better taken as a whole. There are things i think should be different with
> p2900, but p2900 represents consensus. There has been no evidence put
> forward that there is a more correct course. Based on those decades of
> experience here are no outstanding questions that having a TS would answer.
>
>
>
> If i am wrong, please list precise questions that a TS would answer. “We
> don’t have enough experience” is a statement.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:54 AM John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> You keep saying things like we have “decades of experience with
> macro-based systems”.
>
>
>
> If contracts were remotely similar to macro-based systems, we would not be
> having this discussion.
>
>
>
> The problem is that contracts are *vastly* different.
>
>
>
> If you put P2900 and macro-based systems in the same set, that means you
> don’t understand one or the other.
>
>
>
> John.
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2025, at 2:22 PM, Ryan McDougall via SG21 <
> sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
> The "course corrections" do not actually suggest a future course (beyond
> asserting without evidence"we need more experience" and kicking the can
> down the road to a TS) -- we've had years for alternative proposals to be
> put forward, and none have surpassed P2900.
>
> We *do* have decades of experience with macro-based systems, we *do* have
> decades of experience building software at scale (see Software
> Engineering at Google <https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book>), and we
> *do* know who our users are (see P1995 and P3297) -- and while there are
> many variations on contracts, P2900 represents our best consensus
> interpretation of those decades of experience. Not all of these decisions
> were everyone's first choice, but P2900 is the consensus. There is no
> evidence that any other option would improve that.
>
> Multiple papers, like P2900 and P3578 <http://wg21.link/p3578> explain
> exactly who the feature is for, and how and why each of these design
> choices were made. There is no reason to believe the current course is
> incorrect, or that another course would be more correct.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 4:58 AM Ville Voutilainen via SG21 <
> sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 14:34, Timur Doumler via SG15
> <sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Given the above, it seems to me like opposing C++26 contract assertions
> because you want that checks are always on / always enforced is kinda like
> this:
> >
> > – Alice: "I want safer roads for pedestrians." (reasonable and good
> request)
> > – Bob: "Here's a proposal to fund bike lanes in the city." (reasonable
> and good proposal roughly in the same area but with a different goal)
> > – Alice: "But bike lanes don't add more crosswalks or reduce speed
> limits. So they don't make roads safer for pedestrians. Therefore, we
> should not build bike lanes."
> >
> > Here, Alice is committing a logical fallacy. Just because bike lanes are
> not useful for Alice, it doesn't mean that they're not useful for Bob, and
> taking away bike lanes from Bob does nothing to give Alice what she wants.
>
> The colorful analogy doesn't include considerations where providing
> bike lanes for Bob and doing nothing else is not entirely harmless for
> the pedestrians Alice is focused on.
>
> It's also incorrect in its suggestion that bike lanes are not useful
> for Alice. Nobody has said that P2900 isn't useful. That's why it's
> included
> in *every* *single* *one* of the currently active proposals suggesting
> course corrections.
> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11436.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
>
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11499.php
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11532.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG15 mailing list
> SG15_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15
>
>