[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++][hardening] Categorize assertions related to strict weak ordering (PR #77405)

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -283,9 +283,20 @@
 // - `_LIBCPP_ASSERT_COMPATIBLE_ALLOCATOR` -- checks any operations that exchange nodes between containers to make sure
 //   the containers have compatible allocators.
 //
+// - `_LIBCPP_ASSERT_ARGUMENT_WITHIN_DOMAIN` -- checks that the given argument is within the domain of valid arguments
+//   for the function. Violating this typically produces an incorrect result (e.g. the clamp algorithm returns the
+//   original value without clamping it due to incorrect functors) or puts an object into an invalid state (e.g.
+//   a string view where only a subset of elements is possible to access). This doesn't cause an immediate issue within
+//   the library but is always a logic bug and is likely to cause problems within user code.
+//   This is somewhat of a catch-all (or fallback) category -- it covers errors triggered by user input that don't have
+//   a more specific category defined (which is always preferable when available).
+//
 // - `_LIBCPP_ASSERT_PEDANTIC` -- checks prerequisites which are imposed by the Standard, but violating which happens to
 //   be benign in our implementation.
 //
+// - `_LIBCPP_ASSERT_INTRUSIVE` -- for assertions that perform intrusive and typically very expensive validations of
----------------
ldionne wrote:

I am not a huge fan of the word "intrusive", but I could live with it. However, I would suggest maybe piggy-backing on the notion of a "semantic constraint" or "semantic requirement" would be fruitful, since that's what this strict-weak-ordering checking is doing.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77405