Re: [RFC] Exempt input type and value validation from BC Break policy

On Monday, 9 March 2026 at 13:53, Kamil Tekiela <tekiela246@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > I am, however, concerned about one thing. If we don't require RFCs > there may be situations when a contentious validation is introduced. > For example, many validations can be implemented in such a way that > they don't cause additional performance loss, but let's say someone > decides that validating the value provides more benefit than the > performance cost. Without RFC, the community cannot share their > feedback, and one person's opinion wins. But if the function is used > with the correct values 99.99% of the time and it's used in the hot > code, the performance cost isn't worth catching the accidental invalid > value. I don't think this concern is warranted in practice for at least 2 reasons: - The majority of those functions are not going to be purely computational functions and are tied to some I/O operation - These input checking guards should be wrapped in UNEXPECTED() hinting to the CPU that they should optimize for this branch not to be taken Best regards, Gina P. Banyard