A library wide specification of auch enforcement can be done probably only
at module level. So contracts enforcement should probably be specified as
part of ita module interface when building.

Best
Jayesh

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 15:08 Jayesh Badwaik <jayesh_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > I *do* want to be able to control the semantic of my checks, but I want
> to be able to have a given semantic for my checks, and possibly some other
> semantic for checks from “library A”, and yet another set for “library B”.
>
> > That still fails to do what i want, which is to have the library provide
> know that the semantic they choose will be the one used when the program is
> linked.
>
> What you're asking for is source code auithor to control contract
> enforcement. The only way a source code author can control enforcement is
> by putting the syntax for observe/ignore/enforce in source code, because
> thats the only place that the author of code has control over.
>
>
>
>
> Best
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 12:31 John Spicer via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> Your proposal is essentially a form of labels.
>>
>> As I have previously commented, it is not clear that something like
>> labels is a right solution for my issue because of the need to decorate
>> every pre/post/contract_assert.
>>
>> It also doesn’t really address my concern because I *do* want to be able
>> to control the semantic of my checks, but I want to be able to have a given
>> semantic for my checks, and possibly some other semantic for checks from
>> “library A”, and yet another set for “library B”.
>>
>> John.
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/25 4:31 PM, John Spicer wrote:
>>
>> I want to provide the guarantee because I want to be able to have checks
>> that I know are enforced.
>>
>> If I don’t know they are enforced, then I’ll keep using my macro-based
>> solution where I know that they are.
>>
>> As an example, the EDG front end can be built as a library, and to use
>> it, you need to include some EDG header files.
>>
>> I don’t want my checks to go away because the user of the library chose a
>> different semantic.
>>
>> I hope that answers the question. If not, let me know.
>>
>> I understand that you want those guarantees; I'm not questioning that.
>>
>> I'm still interested in whether a syntax like the one I suggested
>> suffices to provide that guarantee. If not, how does it fall short? Assume
>> that the syntax (however spelled) is applicable to pre, post, and
>> contract_assert.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>>
>> John.
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 12:21 PM, Tom Honermann via SG21
>> <sg21_at_[hidden]> <sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/22/25 10:26 AM, John Spicer via SG21 wrote:
>>
>> That still fails to do what i want, which is to have the library provide
>> know that the semantic they choose will be the one used when the program is
>> linked.
>>
>> The following question is, again, intended as a serious one.
>>
>> Why do you want to use contracts to provide that guarantee?
>>
>> From my perspective, an unconditional-always-enforce contract semantic
>> changes a function that has a narrow contract into a function that has a
>> wide contract (or at least a wider contract subject to contracts that are
>> actually expressible in the language). Contracts aren't needed to do that;
>> we can express wider contracts in code today. Is the desire based on
>> wanting integration with a contract violation handler? Or a desire to
>> express hardened preconditions in the function interface so that they are
>> available for static analysis or caller-side optimization?
>>
>> Assuming those capture your motivation, how far would support for a
>> syntax like the following go towards satisfying your desire?
>>
>> int* find(int *begin, int *end, int item)
>> pre *hardened* (begin != nullptr) // Hardened preconditions;
>> pre *hardened* (end != nullptr) // always evaluated with a
>> pre *hardened* (begin <= end) // terminating contract semantic.
>> pre (is_sorted(begin, end) // Not a hardened precondition.
>> ;
>>
>>
>> It also sounds like this is mostly a variant of runtime semantic
>> selection, which requires the code for all possible semantic varients to be
>> emitted, which is a non-starter for most production code.
>>
>> For what it is worth, I agree that is a non-starter for most production
>> code with the linkers and loaders in use today.
>>
>> This is a bit of a tangent, but my expectation, based on post link
>> optimization work I'm aware of but can't talk about, is that future linkers
>> and loaders will be able to support optimizing at load-time based on a
>> load-time selected contract semantic (similar to JIT enablement of Java
>> assertions by JVMs). I can't promise that such technologies will ever be
>> deployed of course or on any meaningful timeline. I want to ensure the C++
>> standard does not prohibit use of such future optimization possibilities by
>> requiring a compile-time selected semantic by default (I'm ok with an
>> explicit opt-in as in the example above).
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>>
>> John.
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2025, at 7:33 AM, Gašper Ažman <gasper.azman_at_[hidden]>
>> <gasper.azman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> You can definitely do it with conventional linkers. You guard the check
>> with a link-time constant semantic at code emission; you let the linker
>> fill those in. The link-time constant is a global that the linker
>> deduplicates.
>>
>> You can also introduce additional labels that skip the checks in the
>> preconditions, and let the linker resolve the calls to those. Normal
>> linkers do this. It works for weak symbols too.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:57 AM John Spicer <jhspicer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> That assumes facilities that linkers might not have, and even if they
>>> have them, it may require expert use to select the version of the function
>>> you want.
>>>
>>> This also potentially requires you to *know* which functions you and
>>> your libraries use.
>>>
>>> On most systems with conventional linkers you do not have the capability
>>> you describe.
>>>
>>> John.
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2025, at 6:52 AM, Gašper Ažman via SG21 <
>>> sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> it shouldn't be "assigned randomly" - it's at best a final link-time
>>> property (as specified). The final link (+LTO) can do it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:50 AM John Spicer <jhspicer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is that for function templates, member functions of class
>>>> templates, and inline functions, the semantic is essentially assigned
>>>> randomly if it is used in multiple TUs that are compiled with different
>>>> semantics.
>>>>
>>>> In most complex environments you are dealing with things like libraries
>>>> that are provided by others, so you may not have control over how it is
>>>> built.
>>>>
>>>> You can also have two libraries that use a third library, but if those
>>>> two libraries are a different semantic any user of the third library has no
>>>> idea what semantic they’ll get even if their code also uses the third
>>>> library and is built with a particular semantic.
>>>>
>>>> John.
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2025, at 11:45 AM, Gašper Ažman via SG21 <
>>>> sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 to what Tom said.
>>>>
>>>> One part of this discussion is speaking as if semantics are assigned
>>>> randomly or arbitrarily, where they are assigned by the person who ships
>>>> the product - it has been pointed out time and time again that the actor
>>>> deploying the application is the final arbiter of what "safe" means for a
>>>> given contract check, because it's actually a function of "safe(context) ->
>>>> bloom" (where "bloom" is a type with exactly two values of "no" and
>>>> "perhaps").
>>>>
>>>> The stakeholder with the best context is the deployer of the
>>>> application; the farther away you go from that stakeholder, the less
>>>> context they have. Deferring the choice of semantic to as late as possible
>>>> gives a better outcome.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 4:33 PM Tom Honermann via SG21 <
>>>> sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 17, 2025, at 10:23 AM, Harald Achitz via SG21 <
>>>>> sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2025-10-17 16:00, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:53 AM Harald Achitz via SG15 <
>>>>> sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void fun(Foo* ptr) {
>>>>>> my_supper_assert_macro (ptr!=nullpter);
>>>>>> my_supper_assert_macro(ptr->hasData());
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> should not have any problems, ever
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIU, if my_supper_assert_macro implements something equivalent to
>>>>> observe, that is still UB at present. Or is it EB now?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
>>>>> -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supongas Nada
>>>>> -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On devices that keep you alive, one example where I have seen such
>>>>> super asserts in action, contracts are contracts They do not exist only
>>>>> sometimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, (plain language) contracts are omnipresent. The contract
>>>>> checking statements above violate the function contract and are thus
>>>>> defective. Static analysis can diagnose such cases. For example, I would
>>>>> expect a contracts enabled version of Coverity to report a FORWARD_NULL
>>>>> issue for the above code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not even sure if contracts as specified would pass regulatory
>>>>> requirements, I think not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m not an expert on the subject by any means, but I would expect
>>>>> regulatory requirements to consider the manner in which the software is
>>>>> built; just as they consider the content of the source code and require
>>>>> other supply chain guards. A requirement that deployed software not contain
>>>>> portions for which the observe semantic is selected seems reasonable and
>>>>> prudent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Harald
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> SG21 mailing list
>>>>> SG21_at_[hidden]
>>>>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
>>>>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11351.php
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> SG21 mailing list
>>>> SG21_at_[hidden]
>>>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
>>>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11352.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SG21 mailing list
>>> SG21_at_[hidden]
>>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
>>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11422.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SG21 mailing listSG21_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11687.php
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SG21 mailing list
>> SG21_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11701.php
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SG15 mailing list
>> SG15_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15
>>
>