Re: [PATCH] c++, contracts: Fix ICE in create_tmp_var [PR113968]
HI Jason,
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 17:31, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 7/5/24 10:25 AM, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> > Certain places in contract parsing currently do not check for errors.
> > This results in contracts
> > with embedded errors which eventually confuse gimplify. Checks for
> > errors added in
> > grok_contract() and cp_parser_contract_attribute_spec() to exit early
> > if an error is encountered.
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> > ---
> >
> > PR c++/113968
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * contracts.cc (grok_contract): Check for error_mark_node early
> >exit
>
> These hunks are OK.
>
> > * parser.cc (cp_parser_contract_attribute_spec): Check for
> >error_mark_node early exit
>
> This seems redundant, since finish_contract_attribute already checks for
> error_mark_node and we're returning its result unchanged.
good catch, removed.
>
> Also, the convention is for wrapped lines in ChangeLog entries to line
> up with the *, and to finish sentences with a period.
done.
Tests re-run on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu , no change.
---
PR C++/113968
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* contracts.cc (grok_contract): Check for error_mark_node early
exit.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C: New test.
Signed-off-by: Nina Ranns
---
gcc/cp/contracts.cc | 7 ++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C | 29 +++
2 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/contracts.cc b/gcc/cp/contracts.cc
index 634e3cf4fa9..a7d0fdacf6e 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/contracts.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/contracts.cc
@@ -750,6 +750,9 @@ tree
grok_contract (tree attribute, tree mode, tree result, cp_expr condition,
location_t loc)
{
+ if (condition == error_mark_node)
+return error_mark_node;
+
tree_code code;
if (is_attribute_p ("assert", attribute))
code = ASSERTION_STMT;
@@ -785,6 +788,10 @@ grok_contract (tree attribute, tree mode, tree
result, cp_expr condition,
/* The condition is converted to bool. */
condition = finish_contract_condition (condition);
+
+ if (condition == error_mark_node)
+return error_mark_node;
+
CONTRACT_CONDITION (contract) = condition;
return contract;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..fbaad1c930d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// check that an invalid contract condition doesn't cause an ICE
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-std=c++2a -fcontracts " }
+
+struct A
+{
+ A (A&);
+};
+struct S
+{
+ void f(A a)
+[[ pre : a]] // { dg-error "could not convert" }
+[[ pre : a.b]]// { dg-error "has no member" }
+{
+
+}
+};
+void f(A a)
+ [[ pre : a]] // { dg-error "could not convert" }
+ [[ pre : a.b]]// { dg-error "has no member" }
+ {
+[[ assert : a ]]; // { dg-error "could not convert" }
+[[ assert : a.b ]];// { dg-error "has no member" }
+ }
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+}
--
2.45.2
[PATCH] c++, contracts: Fix ICE in create_tmp_var [PR113968]
Certain places in contract parsing currently do not check for errors.
This results in contracts
with embedded errors which eventually confuse gimplify. Checks for
errors added in
grok_contract() and cp_parser_contract_attribute_spec() to exit early
if an error is encountered.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
---
PR c++/113968
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* contracts.cc (grok_contract): Check for error_mark_node early
exit
* parser.cc (cp_parser_contract_attribute_spec): Check for
error_mark_node early exit
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C: New test.
Signed-off-by: Nina Ranns
---
gcc/cp/contracts.cc | 7 ++
gcc/cp/parser.cc | 3 +++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C | 29 +++
3 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/contracts.cc b/gcc/cp/contracts.cc
index 634e3cf4fa9..a7d0fdacf6e 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/contracts.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/contracts.cc
@@ -750,6 +750,9 @@ tree
grok_contract (tree attribute, tree mode, tree result, cp_expr condition,
location_t loc)
{
+ if (condition == error_mark_node)
+return error_mark_node;
+
tree_code code;
if (is_attribute_p ("assert", attribute))
code = ASSERTION_STMT;
@@ -785,6 +788,10 @@ grok_contract (tree attribute, tree mode, tree
result, cp_expr condition,
/* The condition is converted to bool. */
condition = finish_contract_condition (condition);
+
+ if (condition == error_mark_node)
+return error_mark_node;
+
CONTRACT_CONDITION (contract) = condition;
return contract;
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.cc b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
index 31ae9c2fb54..22c5e760aee 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
@@ -30835,6 +30835,9 @@ cp_parser_contract_attribute_spec (cp_parser
*parser, tree attribute)
return error_mark_node;
}
+ if (contract == error_mark_node)
+return error_mark_node;
+
return finish_contract_attribute (attribute, contract);
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..fbaad1c930d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/contracts/pr113968.C
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// check that an invalid contract condition doesn't cause an ICE
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-std=c++2a -fcontracts " }
+
+struct A
+{
+ A (A&);
+};
+struct S
+{
+ void f(A a)
+[[ pre : a]] // { dg-error "could not convert" }
+[[ pre : a.b]]// { dg-error "has no member" }
+{
+
+}
+};
+void f(A a)
+ [[ pre : a]] // { dg-error "could not convert" }
+ [[ pre : a.b]]// { dg-error "has no member" }
+ {
+[[ assert : a ]]; // { dg-error "could not convert" }
+[[ assert : a.b ]];// { dg-error "has no member" }
+ }
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+}
--
2.45.2
Re: PR C++/63149
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 19:19, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 6/5/19 1:29 PM, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote: > > Ack. Amended change log is below. Changes are : > > * changed C++ -> c++ > > * fixed the name of added test > > > > There are no changes in the diff, but I attached it to this e-mail for > > reference. > > Applied, thanks! > > For future reference it's also customary to add a bit of discussion of > the rationale for the patch. Also, please include the word "PATCH" on > the subject line. Noted. Thank you, Nina > > Jason >
Re: PR C++/63149
Ack. Amended change log is below. Changes are :
* changed C++ -> c++
* fixed the name of added test
There are no changes in the diff, but I attached it to this e-mail for
reference.
Thanks,
Nina
2019-06-04 Nina Dinka Ranns
gcc/cp
PR c++/63149
* pt.c (listify_autos): Use non cv qualified auto_node in
std::initializer_list.
testsuite/
PR c++/63149
* g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C: New test.
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 13:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:50:54PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 08:39:56AM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:34:05AM +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> > > > > PR C++/63149
> > > > > * pt.c (listify_autos): Use non cv qualified auto_node in
> > > > > std::initializer_list.
> > > > >
> > > > > testsuite/
> > > > >
> > > > > PR C++/63149
> > >
> > > "c++" instead of "C++", thought I don't think anyone would mind.
> >
> > I would, I have scripts that grab the PR strings from ChangeLog entries
> > and need to fix stuff by hand if it is incorrect like this (or if people
> > forget to use the component/ part altogether).
>
> Fair enough. Nina, please adjust that too, then.
>
> Marek
Index: gcc/cp/pt.c
===
--- gcc/cp/pt.c (revision 271709)
+++ gcc/cp/pt.c (working copy)
@@ -26836,7 +26836,7 @@
static tree
listify_autos (tree type, tree auto_node)
{
- tree init_auto = listify (auto_node);
+ tree init_auto = listify (strip_top_quals (auto_node));
tree argvec = make_tree_vec (1);
TREE_VEC_ELT (argvec, 0) = init_auto;
if (processing_template_decl)
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (nonexistent)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// Test for PR63149
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+#include
+
+const auto r = { 1, 2, 3 };
+using X = decltype(r);
+using X = const std::initializer_list;
Re: PR C++/63149
yes, I forgot to attach the latest patch. :)
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 10:24, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
>
> Hi both,
> Addressing all comments in this e-mail, as some are duplicate.
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 20:45, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 04/06/19 21:26, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >
> > Good point, dg-do compile is sufficient to demonstrate the issue.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > A couple of additional nits, sorry for mentioning only now.
> >
> >
> > C++63149_2.diff
> >
> > Index: gcc/cp/pt.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc/cp/pt.c (revision 271709)
> > +++ gcc/cp/pt.c (working copy)
> > @@ -26836,7 +26836,7 @@
> > static tree
> > listify_autos (tree type, tree auto_node)
> > {
> > - tree init_auto = listify (auto_node);
> > + tree init_auto = listify (strip_top_quals(auto_node));
> >
> > You want a space after strip_top_quals.
>
> fixed.
>
> >
> >tree argvec = make_tree_vec (1);
> >TREE_VEC_ELT (argvec, 0) = init_auto;
> >if (processing_template_decl)
> > Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C
> > ===
> > --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (nonexistent)
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (working copy)
> > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> > +// Test for PR63149
> > +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> > +
> > +#include
> > +
> > +const auto r = { 1, 2, 3 };
> > +using X = decltype(r);
> > +using X = const std::initializer_list;
> > +
> > +int main()
> > +{
> > +}
> >
> > With dg-do compile you don't need a main anymore.
> >
> fixed
>
> > I seem to remember also a couple of minor formatting issues in the
> > ChangeLog entry: just harmonize the format with everything else you find in
> > the ChangeLog, in terms of the usual trivial details: upper cases, line
> > lenghts and line wraps, etc.
> >
>
> Below is the amended change log. If there is anything else off, I
> would need specifics as I've made all the changes I could spot myself.
> :)
>
> Thanks,
> Nina
>
> 2019-06-04 Nina Dinka Ranns
> gcc/cp
>
> PR C++/63149
> * pt.c (listify_autos): Use non cv qualified auto_node in
> std::initializer_list.
>
> testsuite/
>
> PR C++/63149
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce.C: New test.
Index: gcc/cp/pt.c
===
--- gcc/cp/pt.c (revision 271709)
+++ gcc/cp/pt.c (working copy)
@@ -26836,7 +26836,7 @@
static tree
listify_autos (tree type, tree auto_node)
{
- tree init_auto = listify (auto_node);
+ tree init_auto = listify (strip_top_quals (auto_node));
tree argvec = make_tree_vec (1);
TREE_VEC_ELT (argvec, 0) = init_auto;
if (processing_template_decl)
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (nonexistent)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// Test for PR63149
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+#include
+
+const auto r = { 1, 2, 3 };
+using X = decltype(r);
+using X = const std::initializer_list;
Re: PR C++/63149
Hi both,
Addressing all comments in this e-mail, as some are duplicate.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 20:45, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 04/06/19 21:26, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
>
> Good point, dg-do compile is sufficient to demonstrate the issue.
>
> I agree.
>
> A couple of additional nits, sorry for mentioning only now.
>
>
> C++63149_2.diff
>
> Index: gcc/cp/pt.c
> ===
> --- gcc/cp/pt.c (revision 271709)
> +++ gcc/cp/pt.c (working copy)
> @@ -26836,7 +26836,7 @@
> static tree
> listify_autos (tree type, tree auto_node)
> {
> - tree init_auto = listify (auto_node);
> + tree init_auto = listify (strip_top_quals(auto_node));
>
> You want a space after strip_top_quals.
fixed.
>
>tree argvec = make_tree_vec (1);
>TREE_VEC_ELT (argvec, 0) = init_auto;
>if (processing_template_decl)
> Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (nonexistent)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +// Test for PR63149
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +#include
> +
> +const auto r = { 1, 2, 3 };
> +using X = decltype(r);
> +using X = const std::initializer_list;
> +
> +int main()
> +{
> +}
>
> With dg-do compile you don't need a main anymore.
>
fixed
> I seem to remember also a couple of minor formatting issues in the ChangeLog
> entry: just harmonize the format with everything else you find in the
> ChangeLog, in terms of the usual trivial details: upper cases, line lenghts
> and line wraps, etc.
>
Below is the amended change log. If there is anything else off, I
would need specifics as I've made all the changes I could spot myself.
:)
Thanks,
Nina
2019-06-04 Nina Dinka Ranns
gcc/cp
PR C++/63149
* pt.c (listify_autos): Use non cv qualified auto_node in
std::initializer_list.
testsuite/
PR C++/63149
* g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce.C: New test.
Re: PR C++/63149
Good point, dg-do compile is sufficient to demonstrate the issue.
Amended, new patch attached.
Thanks,
Nina
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 17:53, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 04/06/19 18:36, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> > +// Test for PR63149
> > +// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
>
> Are you sure you want a dg-do run?
>
> Paolo.
>
>
Index: gcc/cp/pt.c
===
--- gcc/cp/pt.c (revision 271709)
+++ gcc/cp/pt.c (working copy)
@@ -26836,7 +26836,7 @@
static tree
listify_autos (tree type, tree auto_node)
{
- tree init_auto = listify (auto_node);
+ tree init_auto = listify (strip_top_quals(auto_node));
tree argvec = make_tree_vec (1);
TREE_VEC_ELT (argvec, 0) = init_auto;
if (processing_template_decl)
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (nonexistent)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+// Test for PR63149
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+#include
+
+const auto r = { 1, 2, 3 };
+using X = decltype(r);
+using X = const std::initializer_list;
+
+int main()
+{
+}
PR C++/63149
Tested on Linux x86_64
2019-06-04 Nina Dinka Ranns
gcc/cp
PR c++/63149
* pt.c (listify_autos): use non cv qualified auto_node in
std::initializer_list
testsuite/
PR c++/63149
* g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce.C: New
Index: gcc/cp/pt.c
===
--- gcc/cp/pt.c (revision 271709)
+++ gcc/cp/pt.c (working copy)
@@ -26836,7 +26836,7 @@
static tree
listify_autos (tree type, tree auto_node)
{
- tree init_auto = listify (auto_node);
+ tree init_auto = listify (strip_top_quals(auto_node));
tree argvec = make_tree_vec (1);
TREE_VEC_ELT (argvec, 0) = init_auto;
if (processing_template_decl)
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (nonexistent)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce2.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+// Test for PR63149
+// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+
+#include
+
+const auto r = { 1, 2, 3 };
+using X = decltype(r);
+using X = const std::initializer_list;
+
+int main()
+{
+}
[v3 PATCH] basic_string spurious use of a default constructible allocator - LWG2788
Tested on Linux x86_64
basic_string spurious use of a default constructible allocator - LWG2788
2019-05-27 Nina Dinka Ranns
basic_string spurious use of a default constructible allocator - LWG2788
* bits/basic_string.tcc:
(_M_replace_dispatch()): string temporary now constructed with
the current allocator
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/lwg2788.cc: New
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/wchar_t/lwg2788.cc: New
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc (revision 271509)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc (working copy)
@@ -381,7 +381,9 @@
_InputIterator __k1, _InputIterator __k2,
std::__false_type)
{
- const basic_string __s(__k1, __k2);
+// _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS
+// 2788. unintentionally require a default constructible allocator
+ const basic_string __s(__k1, __k2, this->get_allocator());
const size_type __n1 = __i2 - __i1;
return _M_replace(__i1 - begin(), __n1, __s._M_data(),
__s.size());
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/nonesuch/nonesuch.cc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/nonesuch/nonesuch.cc (revision 271509)
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/nonesuch/nonesuch.cc (nonexistent)
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-// 2019-05-14 Nina Dinka Ranns
-// Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-//
-// This file is part of the GNU ISO C++ Library. This library is free
-// software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
-// terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
-// Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
-// any later version.
-
-// This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
-// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
-// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
-// GNU General Public License for more details.
-
-// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
-// with this library; see the file COPYING3. If not see
-// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
-
-// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
-
-#include
-// Example taken from LWG2960
-
-using std::__nonesuch;
-struct such {};
-void f(const such&){};
-void f(const std::__nonesuch&);
-
-int main(){
- static_assert(!std::is_default_constructible<__nonesuch>::value,
- "__nonesuch is default constructible");
- static_assert(!std::is_copy_constructible<__nonesuch>::value,
- "__nonesuch is copy constructible");
- static_assert(!std::is_assignable<__nonesuch, __nonesuch>::value,
- "__nonesuch is assignable");
- static_assert(!std::is_destructible<__nonesuch>::value,
- "__nonesuch is destructible");
- f({});
-}
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/lwg2788.cc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/lwg2788.cc (nonexistent)
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/lwg2788.cc (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+//{ dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+
+// 2019-05-27 Nina Dinka Ranns
+//
+// Copyright (C) 2015-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+//
+// This file is part of the GNU ISO C++ Library. This library is free
+// software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
+// terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
+// Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
+// any later version.
+
+// This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+// GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+// with this library; see the file COPYING3. If not see
+// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+
+#include
+#include
+
+using C = char;
+using traits = std::char_traits;
+int constructCount = 0;
+
+static void resetCounter()
+{
+ constructCount = 0;
+}
+
+template
+struct TestAllocator
+{
+ typedef Tp value_type;
+ using size_type = unsigned;
+
+ TestAllocator() noexcept { constructCount++; }
+
+ template
+ TestAllocator(const TestAllocator&) {}
+
+ Tp *allocate(std::size_t n)
+ { return std::allocator().allocate(n); }
+
+ void deallocate(Tp *p, std::size_t n)
+ { std::allocator().deallocate(p, n); }
+
+};
+
+template
+bool operator==(const TestAllocator&, const TestAllocator&)
+{ return true; }
+template
+bool operator!=(const TestAllocator&, const TestAllocator&)
+{ return false; }
+
+void test01()
+{
+ typedef TestAllocator alloc_type;
+ typedef std::basic_string test_t
Re: [v3 PATCH] nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
That was fast :)
I’ll check the changelog for future reference.
Thanks,
Nina
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 16:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 14/05/19 15:43 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >Tested on Linux x86_64
> >nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
> >
> >2019-05-14 Nina Dinka Ranns
> >nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
> >* include/std/type_traits
> >struct __nonesuch: added private base class to make __nonesuch
> >not an aggregate and removed deleted default constructor
> >* include/bits/stl_pair.h:
> >struct __nonesuch_no_braces: Removed
> >(operator=(const pair&)): Use __nonesuch instead of
> >__nonesuch_no_braces.
> >(operator=(pair&&)): Likewise
> >* include/std/tuple
> >(operator=(const tuple&)): Use __nonesuch instead of
> >__nonesuch_no_braces.
> >(operator=(tuple&&)): Likewise
> >* include/experimental/type_traits
> > struct nonesuch: added private base class to make nonesuch
> >not an aggregate and removed deleted default constructor
> >* testsuite/20_util/nonesuch/nonesuch.cc: New
> >* testsuite/experimental/type_traits/nonesuch.cc: New
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tested and committed, again with some changelog edits, and some whitespace
> before the opening braces here ...
>
> >@@ -2769,8 +2769,8 @@
> > __call_is_nothrow_<_Fn, _Args...>>::type
> > { };
> >
> >- struct __nonesuch {
> >-__nonesuch() = delete;
> >+ struct __nonesuchbase{};
> >+ struct __nonesuch : private __nonesuchbase{
>
>
>
[v3 PATCH] nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
Tested on Linux x86_64
nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
2019-05-14 Nina Dinka Ranns
nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
* include/std/type_traits
struct __nonesuch: added private base class to make __nonesuch
not an aggregate and removed deleted default constructor
* include/bits/stl_pair.h:
struct __nonesuch_no_braces: Removed
(operator=(const pair&)): Use __nonesuch instead of
__nonesuch_no_braces.
(operator=(pair&&)): Likewise
* include/std/tuple
(operator=(const tuple&)): Use __nonesuch instead of
__nonesuch_no_braces.
(operator=(tuple&&)): Likewise
* include/experimental/type_traits
struct nonesuch: added private base class to make nonesuch
not an aggregate and removed deleted default constructor
* testsuite/20_util/nonesuch/nonesuch.cc: New
* testsuite/experimental/type_traits/nonesuch.cc: New
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_pair.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_pair.h (revision 270630)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_pair.h (working copy)
@@ -178,13 +178,6 @@
return false;
}
};
-
- // PR libstdc++/79141, a utility type for preventing
- // initialization of an argument of a disabled assignment
- // operator from a pair of empty braces.
- struct __nonesuch_no_braces : std::__nonesuch {
-explicit __nonesuch_no_braces(const __nonesuch&) = delete;
- };
#endif // C++11
template class __pair_base
@@ -378,7 +371,7 @@
operator=(typename conditional<
__and_,
is_copy_assignable<_T2>>::value,
- const pair&, const __nonesuch_no_braces&>::type __p)
+ const pair&, const __nonesuch&>::type __p)
{
first = __p.first;
second = __p.second;
@@ -389,7 +382,7 @@
operator=(typename conditional<
__and_,
is_move_assignable<_T2>>::value,
- pair&&, __nonesuch_no_braces&&>::type __p)
+ pair&&, __nonesuch&&>::type __p)
noexcept(__and_,
is_nothrow_move_assignable<_T2>>::value)
{
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/type_traits
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/type_traits (revision 270630)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/type_traits (working copy)
@@ -226,9 +226,9 @@
template using void_t = void;
-struct nonesuch
+struct __nonesuchbase{};
+struct nonesuch : private __nonesuchbase
{
- nonesuch() = delete;
~nonesuch() = delete;
nonesuch(nonesuch const&) = delete;
void operator=(nonesuch const&) = delete;
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple (revision 270630)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple (working copy)
@@ -816,7 +816,7 @@
tuple&
operator=(typename conditional<__assignable(),
const tuple&,
- const __nonesuch_no_braces&>::type __in)
+ const __nonesuch&>::type __in)
noexcept(__nothrow_assignable())
{
this->_M_assign(__in);
@@ -826,7 +826,7 @@
tuple&
operator=(typename conditional<__assignable<_Elements...>(),
tuple&&,
- __nonesuch_no_braces&&>::type __in)
+ __nonesuch&&>::type __in)
noexcept(__nothrow_assignable<_Elements...>())
{
this->_M_assign(std::move(__in));
@@ -1204,7 +1204,7 @@
tuple&
operator=(typename conditional<__assignable(),
const tuple&,
- const __nonesuch_no_braces&>::type __in)
+ const __nonesuch&>::type __in)
noexcept(__nothrow_assignable())
{
this->_M_assign(__in);
@@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@
tuple&
operator=(typename conditional<__assignable<_T1, _T2>(),
tuple&&,
- __nonesuch_no_braces&&>::type __in)
+ __nonesuch&&>::type __in)
noexcept(__nothrow_assignable<_T1, _T2>())
{
this->_M_assign(std::move(__in));
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (revision 270630)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits (working copy)
@@ -2769,8 +2769,8 @@
__call_is_nothrow_<_Fn, _Args...>>::type
{ };
- struct __nonesuch {
-__nonesuch() = delete;
+ struct __nonesuchbase{};
+ struct __nonesuch : private __nonesuchbase{
~__nonesuch() = delete;
__nonesuch(__nonesuch const&) = delete;
void operator=(__nonesuch const&) = delete;
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/nonesuch/nonesuch.cc
=
[v3 PATCH] Inconsistency wrt Allocators in basic_string assignment vs. basic_string::assign (LWG2579)
Tested on Linux x86_64
Inconsistency wrt Allocators in basic_string assignment vs.
basic_string::assign (LWG2579)
2019-05-09 Nina Dinka Ranns
Inconsistency wrt Allocators in basic_string assignment vs.
basic_string::assign (LWG2579)
* include/bits/basic_string.h:
operator=(const basic_string& __str): moved allocator
decision from operator= to assign
assign(const basic_string& __str): moved allocator decision
from operator= to assign
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/copy_assign.cc:
Adding tests
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/wchar_t/copy_assign.cc:
Adding tests
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h (revision 270943)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h (working copy)
@@ -664,35 +664,6 @@
basic_string&
operator=(const basic_string& __str)
{
-#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
- if (_Alloc_traits::_S_propagate_on_copy_assign())
- {
- if (!_Alloc_traits::_S_always_equal() && !_M_is_local()
- && _M_get_allocator() != __str._M_get_allocator())
- {
- // Propagating allocator cannot free existing storage so must
- // deallocate it before replacing current allocator.
- if (__str.size() <= _S_local_capacity)
- {
- _M_destroy(_M_allocated_capacity);
- _M_data(_M_local_data());
- _M_set_length(0);
- }
- else
- {
- const auto __len = __str.size();
- auto __alloc = __str._M_get_allocator();
- // If this allocation throws there are no effects:
- auto __ptr = _Alloc_traits::allocate(__alloc, __len + 1);
- _M_destroy(_M_allocated_capacity);
- _M_data(__ptr);
- _M_capacity(__len);
- _M_set_length(__len);
- }
- }
- std::__alloc_on_copy(_M_get_allocator(), __str._M_get_allocator());
- }
-#endif
return this->assign(__str);
}
@@ -1363,6 +1334,35 @@
basic_string&
assign(const basic_string& __str)
{
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+ if (_Alloc_traits::_S_propagate_on_copy_assign())
+ {
+ if (!_Alloc_traits::_S_always_equal() && !_M_is_local()
+ && _M_get_allocator() != __str._M_get_allocator())
+ {
+ // Propagating allocator cannot free existing storage so must
+ // deallocate it before replacing current allocator.
+ if (__str.size() <= _S_local_capacity)
+ {
+ _M_destroy(_M_allocated_capacity);
+ _M_data(_M_local_data());
+ _M_set_length(0);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ const auto __len = __str.size();
+ auto __alloc = __str._M_get_allocator();
+ // If this allocation throws there are no effects:
+ auto __ptr = _Alloc_traits::allocate(__alloc, __len + 1);
+ _M_destroy(_M_allocated_capacity);
+ _M_data(__ptr);
+ _M_capacity(__len);
+ _M_set_length(__len);
+ }
+ }
+ std::__alloc_on_copy(_M_get_allocator(), __str._M_get_allocator());
+ }
+#endif
this->_M_assign(__str);
return *this;
}
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/copy_assign.cc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/copy_assign.cc (revision 270943)
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/copy_assign.cc (working copy)
@@ -133,10 +133,47 @@
VERIFY( v1.get_allocator() == a2 );
}
+void test04()
+{
+ // LWG2579
+ typedef propagating_allocator alloc_type;
+
+ typedef std::basic_string test_type;
+
+ test_type v1("tralalala",alloc_type(1));
+ test_type v2("content", alloc_type(2));
+ test_type v3("content2", alloc_type(3));
+
+ v1.assign(v2);
+ v3 = v2;
+ VERIFY(2 == v1.get_allocator().get_personality());
+ VERIFY(2 == v3.get_allocator().get_personality());
+
+}
+
+void test05()
+{
+ // LWG2579
+ typedef propagating_allocator alloc_type;
+
+ typedef std::basic_string test_type;
+
+ test_type v1("tralalala",alloc_type(1));
+ test_type v2("content", alloc_type(2));
+ test_type v3("content2", alloc_type(3));
+
+ v1.assign(v2);
+ v3 = v2;
+ VERIFY(1 == v1.get_allocator().get_personality());
+ VERIFY(3 == v3.get_allocator().get_personality());
+}
+
int main()
{
test01();
test02();
test03();
+ test04();
+ test05();
return 0;
}
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/wchar_t/copy_assign.cc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/wchar_t/copy_assign.cc (revision 270943)
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/wchar_t/copy_assign.cc (working copy)
@@ -133,10 +133,46 @@
VERIFY( v1.get_allocator() == a2 );
}
+void test04()
+{
+ // LWG2579
+ typedef propagating_allocator alloc_t
Re: [v3 PATCH] Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent for operator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 12:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I can remove that #if and test and commit the result for you though, > no need for another revision of the patch. Thanks ! :) Best, Nina
Re: [v3 PATCH] Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent for operator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
Ack. I've put the use of _Alloc_traits::is_always_equal within #if
__cplusplus >= 201703L block since it is officially a C++17 feature.
Let me know if you think that's an overkill.
New changelog below. I didn't change the description of
operator+(basic_string&&,basic_string&&) as it's still technically
always resulting in an allocator from the first parameter.
2019-05-01 Nina Dinka Ranns
Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent
foroperator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
* include/bits/basic_string.h:
(operator+(basic_string&&,basic_string&&) : Changed resulting
allocator to always be the one from the first parameter
* include/bits/basic_string.tcc:
(operator+(const _CharT*, const basic_string&)) : Changed
resulting allocator to be SOCCC on the second parameter's allocator
(operator+(_CharT, const basic_string&)) : Likewise
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc: New
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/wchar_t/operator_plus.cc:
New
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h (revision 270655)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h (working copy)
@@ -6097,11 +6097,22 @@
operator+(basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>&& __lhs,
basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>&& __rhs)
{
- const auto __size = __lhs.size() + __rhs.size();
- const bool __cond = (__size > __lhs.capacity()
- && __size <= __rhs.capacity());
- return __cond ? std::move(__rhs.insert(0, __lhs))
- : std::move(__lhs.append(__rhs));
+ using _Alloc_traits = allocator_traits<_Alloc>;
+ bool __use_rhs = false;
+#if __cplusplus >= 201703L
+ if _GLIBCXX17_CONSTEXPR (typename _Alloc_traits::is_always_equal{})
+ __use_rhs = true;
+ else
+#endif
+ if (__lhs.get_allocator() == __rhs.get_allocator())
+ __use_rhs = true;
+ if (__use_rhs)
+ {
+ const auto __size = __lhs.size() + __rhs.size();
+ if (__size > __lhs.capacity() && __size <= __rhs.capacity())
+ return std::move(__rhs.insert(0, __lhs));
+ }
+ return std::move(__lhs.append(__rhs));
}
template
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc (revision 270655)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc (working copy)
@@ -1161,8 +1161,12 @@
__glibcxx_requires_string(__lhs);
typedef basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc> __string_type;
typedef typename __string_type::size_type __size_type;
+ typedef typename __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Alloc>::template
+ rebind<_CharT>::other _Char_alloc_type;
+ typedef __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Char_alloc_type> _Alloc_traits;
const __size_type __len = _Traits::length(__lhs);
- __string_type __str;
+ __string_type __str(_Alloc_traits::_S_select_on_copy(
+ __rhs.get_allocator()));
__str.reserve(__len + __rhs.size());
__str.append(__lhs, __len);
__str.append(__rhs);
@@ -1175,7 +1179,11 @@
{
typedef basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc> __string_type;
typedef typename __string_type::size_type __size_type;
- __string_type __str;
+ typedef typename __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Alloc>::template
+ rebind<_CharT>::other _Char_alloc_type;
+ typedef __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Char_alloc_type> _Alloc_traits;
+ __string_type __str(_Alloc_traits::_S_select_on_copy(
+ __rhs.get_allocator()));
const __size_type __len = __rhs.size();
__str.reserve(__len + 1);
__str.append(__size_type(1), __lhs);
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc (nonexistent)
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+// 2019-04-30 Nina Dinka Ranns
+// Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+//
+// This file is part of the GNU ISO C++ Library. This library is free
+// software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
+// terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
+// Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
+// any later version.
+
+// This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+// GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Pub
[v3 PATCH] Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent for operator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
Tested on Linux x86_64
Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent for
operator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
2019-05-01 Nina Dinka Ranns
Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent for
operator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
* include/bits/basic_string.tcc:
(operator+(const _CharT*, const basic_string&)) : Changed
resulting allocator to be SOCCC on the second parameter's allocator
(operator+(_CharT, const basic_string&)) : Likewise
(operator+(basic_string&&,basic_string&&) : Changed resulting
allocator to always be the one from the first parameter
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc: New
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/wchar_t/operator_plus.cc
: New
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h (revision 270655)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h (working copy)
@@ -6096,13 +6096,7 @@
inline basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>
operator+(basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>&& __lhs,
basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>&& __rhs)
-{
- const auto __size = __lhs.size() + __rhs.size();
- const bool __cond = (__size > __lhs.capacity()
- && __size <= __rhs.capacity());
- return __cond ? std::move(__rhs.insert(0, __lhs))
- : std::move(__lhs.append(__rhs));
-}
+{ return std::move(__lhs.append(__rhs)); }
template
inline basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc (revision 270655)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc (working copy)
@@ -1161,8 +1161,12 @@
__glibcxx_requires_string(__lhs);
typedef basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc> __string_type;
typedef typename __string_type::size_type __size_type;
+ typedef typename __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Alloc>::template
+ rebind<_CharT>::other _Char_alloc_type;
+ typedef __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Char_alloc_type> _Alloc_traits;
const __size_type __len = _Traits::length(__lhs);
- __string_type __str;
+ __string_type __str(_Alloc_traits::_S_select_on_copy(
+ __rhs.get_allocator()));
__str.reserve(__len + __rhs.size());
__str.append(__lhs, __len);
__str.append(__rhs);
@@ -1175,7 +1179,11 @@
{
typedef basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc> __string_type;
typedef typename __string_type::size_type __size_type;
- __string_type __str;
+ typedef typename __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Alloc>::template
+ rebind<_CharT>::other _Char_alloc_type;
+ typedef __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits<_Char_alloc_type> _Alloc_traits;
+ __string_type __str(_Alloc_traits::_S_select_on_copy(
+ __rhs.get_allocator()));
const __size_type __len = __rhs.size();
__str.reserve(__len + 1);
__str.append(__size_type(1), __lhs);
Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc
===
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc (nonexistent)
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/allocator/char/operator_plus.cc (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+// 2019-04-30 Nina Dinka Ranns
+// Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+//
+// This file is part of the GNU ISO C++ Library. This library is free
+// software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
+// terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
+// Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
+// any later version.
+
+// This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+// GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+// with this library; see the file COPYING3. If not see
+// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+
+// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+// COW strings don't support C++11 allocators:
+// { dg-require-effective-target cxx11-abi }
+
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+
+using C = char;
+using traits = std::char_traits;
+
+using __gnu_test::propagating_allocator;
+
+void test01()
+{
+ typedef propagating_allocator alloc_type;
+ typedef std::basic_string test_type;
+
+ test_type v1("something",alloc_type(1));
+ test_type v2("something",alloc_type(2));
+ auto r1 = v1 + v2;
+ VERIFY(r1.get_allocator().get_personality() == 1);
+
+ auto r2 = v1 + std::
Re: Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
noted, thanks :) Best, Nina On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 22:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 28/04/19 22:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >On 29/04/19 00:18 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > >>On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>> > >>>On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote: > >>>>New diff attached. > >>> > >>>Thanks, this looks great. I think we can apply this as soon as stage 1 > >>>begins (which should be Real Soon Now). > >> > >>Tested on Linux-PPC64, committed to trunk. Congrats, Nina, first patch > >>in, let there be many more. :) > > > >Thanks, Nina, and Ville for taking care of the commit. > > > >Apologies for not noticing it earlier, but the first line of the > >ChangeLog entry was not formatted correctly. There should be two > >spaces either side of the author's name: > > > >2019-04-28 John Doe > > > >not: > > > >2019-04-28 John Doe > > > >I've committed r270633 to fix it. > > > >Thanks again. > > Oh, and the files in the ChangeLog entry should use paths relative to > the ChangeLog file, so no libstdc++-v3/ prefixes. I missed that in the > review too. > >
Re: Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 21:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 23/04/19 18:43 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote: > >On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 21:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> > >> On 16/04/19 17:59 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote: > >> >On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote: > >> >> >Tested on Linux-PPC64 > >> >> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899) > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, Nina! > >> >> > >> >> This looks great, although as I think Ville has explained we won't > >> >> commit it until the next stage 1, after the GCC 9 release. > >> >ack > >> > > >> >> > >> >> The changes look good, I just have some mostly-stylistic comments, > >> >> which are inline below ... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >2019-04-13 Nina Dinka Ranns > >> >> > > >> >> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899) > >> >> >* libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple: > >> >> >(tuple()): Add noexcept-specification. > >> >> >(tuple(const _Elements&...)): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(_UElements&&...)): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(const tuple<_UElements...>&)): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(tuple<_UElements...>&&)): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(const _T1&, const _T2&)): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(_U1&&, _U2&&)): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(const tuple<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(tuple<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(const pair<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise > >> >> >(tuple(pair<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> There should be no blank lines in the changelog entry here. A single > >> >> change should be recorded as a single block in the changelog, with no > >> >> blank lines within it. > >> >ack. Do you need me to do anything about this or is it for future > >> >reference only ? > >> > >> For future reference. Whoever commits the patch can correct the > >> changelog. > >> > >> >> > >> >> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc: > >> >> > New > >> >> >* > >> >> > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs2.cc: New > >> >> >* > >> >> > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs3.cc: New > >> >> >* > >> >> > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs4.cc: New > >> >> >* > >> >> > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs5.cc: New > >> >> >* > >> >> > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs6.cc: New > >> >> > >> >> This is a lot of new test files for a small-ish QoI feature. Could > >> >> they be combined into one file? Generally we do want one test file > >> >> per feature, but I think all of these are arguably testing one feature > >> >> (just on different constructors). The downside of lots of smaller > >> >> files is that we have to compile+assemble+link+run each one, which > >> >> adds several fork()s to launch a new process for each step. On some > >> >> platforms that can be quite slow. > >> >I can do that, but there may be an issue. See below. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >@@ -624,6 +634,7 @@ > >> >> > && (sizeof...(_Elements) >= 1), > >> >> > bool>::type=true> > >> >> > constexpr tuple(_UElements&&... __elements) > >> >> >+ > >> >> >noexcept(__and_...>::value) > >> >> > >> >> Can this be __nothrow_constructible<_UElements>() ? > >> >It should have been that in the first place. Apologies. Fixed. > >> > > >> > > >> >>
Re: Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 21:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 16/04/19 17:59 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >> >Tested on Linux-PPC64
> >> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
> >>
> >> Thanks, Nina!
> >>
> >> This looks great, although as I think Ville has explained we won't
> >> commit it until the next stage 1, after the GCC 9 release.
> >ack
> >
> >>
> >> The changes look good, I just have some mostly-stylistic comments,
> >> which are inline below ...
> >>
> >>
> >> >2019-04-13 Nina Dinka Ranns
> >> >
> >> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
> >> >* libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple:
> >> >(tuple()): Add noexcept-specification.
> >> >(tuple(const _Elements&...)): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(_UElements&&...)): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(const tuple<_UElements...>&)): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(tuple<_UElements...>&&)): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(const _T1&, const _T2&)): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(_U1&&, _U2&&)): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(const tuple<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(tuple<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(const pair<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise
> >> >(tuple(pair<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> There should be no blank lines in the changelog entry here. A single
> >> change should be recorded as a single block in the changelog, with no
> >> blank lines within it.
> >ack. Do you need me to do anything about this or is it for future
> >reference only ?
>
> For future reference. Whoever commits the patch can correct the
> changelog.
>
> >>
> >> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc: New
> >> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs2.cc:
> >> > New
> >> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs3.cc:
> >> > New
> >> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs4.cc:
> >> > New
> >> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs5.cc:
> >> > New
> >> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs6.cc:
> >> > New
> >>
> >> This is a lot of new test files for a small-ish QoI feature. Could
> >> they be combined into one file? Generally we do want one test file
> >> per feature, but I think all of these are arguably testing one feature
> >> (just on different constructors). The downside of lots of smaller
> >> files is that we have to compile+assemble+link+run each one, which
> >> adds several fork()s to launch a new process for each step. On some
> >> platforms that can be quite slow.
> >I can do that, but there may be an issue. See below.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >@@ -624,6 +634,7 @@
> >> > && (sizeof...(_Elements) >= 1),
> >> > bool>::type=true>
> >> > constexpr tuple(_UElements&&... __elements)
> >> >+
> >> >noexcept(__and_...>::value)
> >>
> >> Can this be __nothrow_constructible<_UElements>() ?
> >It should have been that in the first place. Apologies. Fixed.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > : _Inherited(std::forward<_UElements>(__elements)...) { }
> >> >
> >> > template >> >@@ -635,6 +646,7 @@
> >> > && (sizeof...(_Elements) >= 1),
> >> > bool>::type=false>
> >> > explicit constexpr tuple(_UElements&&... __elements)
> >> >+noexcept(__nothrow_constructible<_UElements&&...>())
> >>
> >> The && here is redundant, though harmless.
> >>
> >> is_constructible is exactly equivalent to is_constructible
> >> because U means construction from an rvalue of type U and so does U&&.
> >>
> >> It's fine to leave the && there though.
> >I'm happy to go either way. The only reason I us
Re: Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >Tested on Linux-PPC64
> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
>
> Thanks, Nina!
>
> This looks great, although as I think Ville has explained we won't
> commit it until the next stage 1, after the GCC 9 release.
ack
>
> The changes look good, I just have some mostly-stylistic comments,
> which are inline below ...
>
>
> >2019-04-13 Nina Dinka Ranns
> >
> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
> >* libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple:
> >(tuple()): Add noexcept-specification.
> >(tuple(const _Elements&...)): Likewise
> >(tuple(_UElements&&...)): Likewise
> >(tuple(const tuple<_UElements...>&)): Likewise
> >(tuple(tuple<_UElements...>&&)): Likewise
> >(tuple(const _T1&, const _T2&)): Likewise
> >(tuple(_U1&&, _U2&&)): Likewise
> >(tuple(const tuple<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise
> >(tuple(tuple<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise
> >(tuple(const pair<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise
> >(tuple(pair<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise
> >
> >
>
> There should be no blank lines in the changelog entry here. A single
> change should be recorded as a single block in the changelog, with no
> blank lines within it.
ack. Do you need me to do anything about this or is it for future
reference only ?
>
> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc: New
> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs2.cc: New
> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs3.cc: New
> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs4.cc: New
> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs5.cc: New
> >* libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs6.cc: New
>
> This is a lot of new test files for a small-ish QoI feature. Could
> they be combined into one file? Generally we do want one test file
> per feature, but I think all of these are arguably testing one feature
> (just on different constructors). The downside of lots of smaller
> files is that we have to compile+assemble+link+run each one, which
> adds several fork()s to launch a new process for each step. On some
> platforms that can be quite slow.
I can do that, but there may be an issue. See below.
>
>
> >@@ -624,6 +634,7 @@
> > && (sizeof...(_Elements) >= 1),
> > bool>::type=true>
> > constexpr tuple(_UElements&&... __elements)
> >+
> >noexcept(__and_...>::value)
>
> Can this be __nothrow_constructible<_UElements>() ?
It should have been that in the first place. Apologies. Fixed.
>
> > : _Inherited(std::forward<_UElements>(__elements)...) { }
> >
> > template >@@ -635,6 +646,7 @@
> > && (sizeof...(_Elements) >= 1),
> > bool>::type=false>
> > explicit constexpr tuple(_UElements&&... __elements)
> >+noexcept(__nothrow_constructible<_UElements&&...>())
>
> The && here is redundant, though harmless.
>
> is_constructible is exactly equivalent to is_constructible
> because U means construction from an rvalue of type U and so does U&&.
>
> It's fine to leave the && there though.
I'm happy to go either way. The only reason I used && form is because
it mimics the wording in the LWG resolution.
>
>
> >@@ -966,6 +995,7 @@
> > && !is_same<__remove_cvref_t<_U1>, allocator_arg_t>::value,
> > bool>::type = true>
> > constexpr tuple(_U1&& __a1, _U2&& __a2)
> >+noexcept(__nothrow_constructible<_U1&&,_U2&&>())
>
> There should be a space after the comma here, and all the later
> additions in the file.
ack. Fixed
>
>
> >Index: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc
> >===
> >--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc
> >(nonexistent)
> >+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc
> >(working copy)
> >@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
> >+// { dg-options { -std=gnu++2a } }
> >+// { dg-do run { target c++2a } }
>
> This new file doesn't use std::is_nothrow_convertible so
Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
Tested on Linux-PPC64 Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899) 2019-04-13 Nina Dinka Ranns Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899) * libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple: (tuple()): Add noexcept-specification. (tuple(const _Elements&...)): Likewise (tuple(_UElements&&...)): Likewise (tuple(const tuple<_UElements...>&)): Likewise (tuple(tuple<_UElements...>&&)): Likewise (tuple(const _T1&, const _T2&)): Likewise (tuple(_U1&&, _U2&&)): Likewise (tuple(const tuple<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise (tuple(tuple<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise (tuple(const pair<_U1, _U2>&): Likewise (tuple(pair<_U1, _U2>&&): Likewise * libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc: New * libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs2.cc: New * libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs3.cc: New * libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs4.cc: New * libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs5.cc: New * libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs6.cc: New noexcept_tuple.diff Description: Binary data
