Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 3:49 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 11:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 21:04, Ken Matsui wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:22 AM Jonathan Wakely > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 21:42, Ken Matsui > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 3:01 AM Jonathan Wakely > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 06:51, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++ > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time: -62.1344% > > > > > > > Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281% > > > > > > > Total Memory Usage: -53.5889% > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow! > > > > > > > > > > > > Although maybe we could have improved our std::is_pointer_v anyway, > > > > > > like so: > > > > > > > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why I didn't already do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please benchmark that? And if it is better than the > > > > > > current > > > > > > impl using is_pointer<_Tp>::value then we should do this in the > > > > > > library: > > > > > > > > > > > > #if __has_builtin(__is_pointer) > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = __is_pointer(_Tp); > > > > > > #else > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > > > > template > > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > > > Hi François and Jonathan, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reviews! I will rename the four underscores to the > > > > > appropriate name and take a benchmark once I get home. > > > > > > > > > > If I apply your change on is_pointer_v, is it better to add the > > > > > `Co-authored-by:` line in the commit? > > > > > > > > Yes, that would be the correct thing to do (although in this case the > > > > change is small enough that I don't really care about getting credit > > > > for it :-) > > > > > > > Thank you! I will include it in my commit :) I see that you included > > > the DCO sign-off in the MAINTAINERS file. However, if a reviewer > > > doesn't, should I include the `Signed-off-by:` line for the reviewer > > > as well? > > > > No, reviewers should not sign-off, that's for the code author. And > > authors should add that themselves (or clearly state that they agree > > to the DCO terms). You should not sign-off on someone else's behalf. > > You can add Reviewed-by: if you want to record that information. > I see. Thank you!
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 11:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 21:04, Ken Matsui wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:22 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 21:42, Ken Matsui > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 3:01 AM Jonathan Wakely > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 06:51, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++ > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023 > > > > > > > > > > > > Time: -62.1344% > > > > > > Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281% > > > > > > Total Memory Usage: -53.5889% > > > > > > > > > > Wow! > > > > > > > > > > Although maybe we could have improved our std::is_pointer_v anyway, > > > > > like so: > > > > > > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why I didn't already do that. > > > > > > > > > > Could you please benchmark that? And if it is better than the current > > > > > impl using is_pointer<_Tp>::value then we should do this in the > > > > > library: > > > > > > > > > > #if __has_builtin(__is_pointer) > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = __is_pointer(_Tp); > > > > > #else > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > > > template > > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > Hi François and Jonathan, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reviews! I will rename the four underscores to the > > > > appropriate name and take a benchmark once I get home. > > > > > > > > If I apply your change on is_pointer_v, is it better to add the > > > > `Co-authored-by:` line in the commit? > > > > > > Yes, that would be the correct thing to do (although in this case the > > > change is small enough that I don't really care about getting credit > > > for it :-) > > > > > Thank you! I will include it in my commit :) I see that you included > > the DCO sign-off in the MAINTAINERS file. However, if a reviewer > > doesn't, should I include the `Signed-off-by:` line for the reviewer > > as well? > > No, reviewers should not sign-off, that's for the code author. And > authors should add that themselves (or clearly state that they agree > to the DCO terms). You should not sign-off on someone else's behalf. You can add Reviewed-by: if you want to record that information.
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 21:04, Ken Matsui wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:22 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 21:42, Ken Matsui wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 3:01 AM Jonathan Wakely > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 06:51, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++ > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023 > > > > > > > > > > Time: -62.1344% > > > > > Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281% > > > > > Total Memory Usage: -53.5889% > > > > > > > > Wow! > > > > > > > > Although maybe we could have improved our std::is_pointer_v anyway, > > > > like so: > > > > > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why I didn't already do that. > > > > > > > > Could you please benchmark that? And if it is better than the current > > > > impl using is_pointer<_Tp>::value then we should do this in the > > > > library: > > > > > > > > #if __has_builtin(__is_pointer) > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = __is_pointer(_Tp); > > > > #else > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > > template > > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > #endif > > > > > > Hi François and Jonathan, > > > > > > Thank you for your reviews! I will rename the four underscores to the > > > appropriate name and take a benchmark once I get home. > > > > > > If I apply your change on is_pointer_v, is it better to add the > > > `Co-authored-by:` line in the commit? > > > > Yes, that would be the correct thing to do (although in this case the > > change is small enough that I don't really care about getting credit > > for it :-) > > > Thank you! I will include it in my commit :) I see that you included > the DCO sign-off in the MAINTAINERS file. However, if a reviewer > doesn't, should I include the `Signed-off-by:` line for the reviewer > as well? No, reviewers should not sign-off, that's for the code author. And authors should add that themselves (or clearly state that they agree to the DCO terms). You should not sign-off on someone else's behalf.
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:22 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 21:42, Ken Matsui wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 3:01 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 06:51, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++ > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023 > > > > > > > > Time: -62.1344% > > > > Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281% > > > > Total Memory Usage: -53.5889% > > > > > > Wow! > > > > > > Although maybe we could have improved our std::is_pointer_v anyway, like > > > so: > > > > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > > > I'm not sure why I didn't already do that. > > > > > > Could you please benchmark that? And if it is better than the current > > > impl using is_pointer<_Tp>::value then we should do this in the > > > library: > > > > > > #if __has_builtin(__is_pointer) > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = __is_pointer(_Tp); > > > #else > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > > template > > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > #endif > > > > Hi François and Jonathan, > > > > Thank you for your reviews! I will rename the four underscores to the > > appropriate name and take a benchmark once I get home. > > > > If I apply your change on is_pointer_v, is it better to add the > > `Co-authored-by:` line in the commit? > > Yes, that would be the correct thing to do (although in this case the > change is small enough that I don't really care about getting credit > for it :-) > Thank you! I will include it in my commit :) I see that you included the DCO sign-off in the MAINTAINERS file. However, if a reviewer doesn't, should I include the `Signed-off-by:` line for the reviewer as well?
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 21:42, Ken Matsui wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 3:01 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 06:51, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++ > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer: > > > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023 > > > > > > Time: -62.1344% > > > Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281% > > > Total Memory Usage: -53.5889% > > > > Wow! > > > > Although maybe we could have improved our std::is_pointer_v anyway, like so: > > > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > > > I'm not sure why I didn't already do that. > > > > Could you please benchmark that? And if it is better than the current > > impl using is_pointer<_Tp>::value then we should do this in the > > library: > > > > #if __has_builtin(__is_pointer) > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = __is_pointer(_Tp); > > #else > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > > template > > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > #endif > > Hi François and Jonathan, > > Thank you for your reviews! I will rename the four underscores to the > appropriate name and take a benchmark once I get home. > > If I apply your change on is_pointer_v, is it better to add the > `Co-authored-by:` line in the commit? Yes, that would be the correct thing to do (although in this case the change is small enough that I don't really care about getting credit for it :-)
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 3:01 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 06:51, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++ > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer: > > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023 > > > > Time: -62.1344% > > Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281% > > Total Memory Usage: -53.5889% > > Wow! > > Although maybe we could have improved our std::is_pointer_v anyway, like so: > > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > > I'm not sure why I didn't already do that. > > Could you please benchmark that? And if it is better than the current > impl using is_pointer<_Tp>::value then we should do this in the > library: > > #if __has_builtin(__is_pointer) > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = __is_pointer(_Tp); > #else > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; > template > inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; > #endif Hi François and Jonathan, Thank you for your reviews! I will rename the four underscores to the appropriate name and take a benchmark once I get home. If I apply your change on is_pointer_v, is it better to add the `Co-authored-by:` line in the commit?
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 06:51, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++ wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer: > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023 > > Time: -62.1344% > Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281% > Total Memory Usage: -53.5889% Wow! Although maybe we could have improved our std::is_pointer_v anyway, like so: template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; I'm not sure why I didn't already do that. Could you please benchmark that? And if it is better than the current impl using is_pointer<_Tp>::value then we should do this in the library: #if __has_builtin(__is_pointer) template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = __is_pointer(_Tp); #else template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v = false; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp*> = true; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const> = true; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* volatile> = true; template inline constexpr bool is_pointer_v<_Tp* const volatile> = true; #endif
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
Hi,
Here is the benchmark result for is_pointer:
https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-benches/blob/main/is_pointer.md#sun-jul--9-103948-pm-pdt-2023
Time: -62.1344%
Peak Memory Usage: -52.4281%
Total Memory Usage: -53.5889%
Sincerely,
Ken Matsui
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 10:38 PM Ken Matsui wrote:
>
> This patch implements built-in trait for std::is_pointer.
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * cp-trait.def: Define __is_pointer.
> * constraint.cc (diagnose_trait_expr): Handle CPTK_IS_POINTER.
> * semantics.cc (trait_expr_value): Likewise.
> (finish_trait_expr): Likewise.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C: Test existence of __is_pointer.
> * g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C: New test.
> * g++.dg/tm/pr46567.C (__is_pointer): Rename to ...
> (is_pointer): ... this.
> * g++.dg/torture/20070621-1.C: Likewise.
> * g++.dg/torture/pr57107.C: Likewise.
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/bits/cpp_type_traits.h (__is_pointer): Rename to ...
> (is_pointer): ... this.
> * include/bits/deque.tcc: Use is_pointer instead.
> * include/bits/stl_algobase.h: Likewise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ken Matsui
> ---
> gcc/cp/constraint.cc| 3 ++
> gcc/cp/cp-trait.def | 1 +
> gcc/cp/semantics.cc | 4 ++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C| 3 ++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C | 51 +
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tm/pr46567.C | 22 -
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/20070621-1.C | 4 +-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr57107.C | 4 +-
> libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cpp_type_traits.h | 6 +--
> libstdc++-v3/include/bits/deque.tcc | 6 +--
> libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h| 6 +--
> 11 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
> index 8cf0f2d0974..30266204eb5 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
> @@ -3751,6 +3751,9 @@ diagnose_trait_expr (tree expr, tree args)
> case CPTK_IS_UNION:
>inform (loc, " %qT is not a union", t1);
>break;
> +case CPTK_IS_POINTER:
> + inform (loc, " %qT is not a pointer", t1);
> + break;
> case CPTK_IS_AGGREGATE:
>inform (loc, " %qT is not an aggregate", t1);
>break;
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def b/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def
> index 8b7fece0cc8..b7c263e9a77 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def
> +++ b/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def
> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_TRIVIALLY_ASSIGNABLE,
> "__is_trivially_assignable", 2)
> DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_TRIVIALLY_CONSTRUCTIBLE, "__is_trivially_constructible",
> -1)
> DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_TRIVIALLY_COPYABLE, "__is_trivially_copyable", 1)
> DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_UNION, "__is_union", 1)
> +DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_POINTER, "__is_pointer", 1)
> DEFTRAIT_EXPR (REF_CONSTRUCTS_FROM_TEMPORARY,
> "__reference_constructs_from_temporary", 2)
> DEFTRAIT_EXPR (REF_CONVERTS_FROM_TEMPORARY,
> "__reference_converts_from_temporary", 2)
> /* FIXME Added space to avoid direct usage in GCC 13. */
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
> index 8fb47fd179e..68f8a4fe85b 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
> @@ -12118,6 +12118,9 @@ trait_expr_value (cp_trait_kind kind, tree type1,
> tree type2)
> case CPTK_IS_UNION:
>return type_code1 == UNION_TYPE;
>
> +case CPTK_IS_POINTER:
> + return TYPE_PTR_P (type1);
> +
> case CPTK_IS_ASSIGNABLE:
>return is_xible (MODIFY_EXPR, type1, type2);
>
> @@ -12296,6 +12299,7 @@ finish_trait_expr (location_t loc, cp_trait_kind
> kind, tree type1, tree type2)
> case CPTK_IS_ENUM:
> case CPTK_IS_UNION:
> case CPTK_IS_SAME:
> +case CPTK_IS_POINTER:
>break;
>
> case CPTK_IS_LAYOUT_COMPATIBLE:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
> index f343e153e56..9dace5cbd48 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
> @@ -146,3 +146,6 @@
> #if !__has_builtin (__remove_cvref)
> # error "__has_builtin (__remove_cvref) failed"
> #endif
> +#if !__has_builtin (__is_pointer)
> +# error "__has_builtin (__is_pointer) failed"
> +#endif
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..d6e39565950
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +#define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X)
> +
> +SA(!__is_pointer(int));
> +SA(__is_pointer(int*));
> +SA(__is_pointer(int**));
> +
> +SA(__is_pointer(const int*));
> +SA(__is_pointer(const int**));
> +SA(__is_pointer(int* const));
> +SA(__is_pointer(int**
[PATCH v2 1/2] c++, libstdc++: implement __is_pointer built-in trait
This patch implements built-in trait for std::is_pointer.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* cp-trait.def: Define __is_pointer.
* constraint.cc (diagnose_trait_expr): Handle CPTK_IS_POINTER.
* semantics.cc (trait_expr_value): Likewise.
(finish_trait_expr): Likewise.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C: Test existence of __is_pointer.
* g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C: New test.
* g++.dg/tm/pr46567.C (__is_pointer): Rename to ...
(is_pointer): ... this.
* g++.dg/torture/20070621-1.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/torture/pr57107.C: Likewise.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/cpp_type_traits.h (__is_pointer): Rename to ...
(is_pointer): ... this.
* include/bits/deque.tcc: Use is_pointer instead.
* include/bits/stl_algobase.h: Likewise.
Signed-off-by: Ken Matsui
---
gcc/cp/constraint.cc| 3 ++
gcc/cp/cp-trait.def | 1 +
gcc/cp/semantics.cc | 4 ++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C| 3 ++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C | 51 +
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tm/pr46567.C | 22 -
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/20070621-1.C | 4 +-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr57107.C | 4 +-
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cpp_type_traits.h | 6 +--
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/deque.tcc | 6 +--
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h| 6 +--
11 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
index 8cf0f2d0974..30266204eb5 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
@@ -3751,6 +3751,9 @@ diagnose_trait_expr (tree expr, tree args)
case CPTK_IS_UNION:
inform (loc, " %qT is not a union", t1);
break;
+case CPTK_IS_POINTER:
+ inform (loc, " %qT is not a pointer", t1);
+ break;
case CPTK_IS_AGGREGATE:
inform (loc, " %qT is not an aggregate", t1);
break;
diff --git a/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def b/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def
index 8b7fece0cc8..b7c263e9a77 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def
+++ b/gcc/cp/cp-trait.def
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_TRIVIALLY_ASSIGNABLE,
"__is_trivially_assignable", 2)
DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_TRIVIALLY_CONSTRUCTIBLE, "__is_trivially_constructible", -1)
DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_TRIVIALLY_COPYABLE, "__is_trivially_copyable", 1)
DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_UNION, "__is_union", 1)
+DEFTRAIT_EXPR (IS_POINTER, "__is_pointer", 1)
DEFTRAIT_EXPR (REF_CONSTRUCTS_FROM_TEMPORARY,
"__reference_constructs_from_temporary", 2)
DEFTRAIT_EXPR (REF_CONVERTS_FROM_TEMPORARY,
"__reference_converts_from_temporary", 2)
/* FIXME Added space to avoid direct usage in GCC 13. */
diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
index 8fb47fd179e..68f8a4fe85b 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
@@ -12118,6 +12118,9 @@ trait_expr_value (cp_trait_kind kind, tree type1, tree
type2)
case CPTK_IS_UNION:
return type_code1 == UNION_TYPE;
+case CPTK_IS_POINTER:
+ return TYPE_PTR_P (type1);
+
case CPTK_IS_ASSIGNABLE:
return is_xible (MODIFY_EXPR, type1, type2);
@@ -12296,6 +12299,7 @@ finish_trait_expr (location_t loc, cp_trait_kind kind,
tree type1, tree type2)
case CPTK_IS_ENUM:
case CPTK_IS_UNION:
case CPTK_IS_SAME:
+case CPTK_IS_POINTER:
break;
case CPTK_IS_LAYOUT_COMPATIBLE:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
index f343e153e56..9dace5cbd48 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/has-builtin-1.C
@@ -146,3 +146,6 @@
#if !__has_builtin (__remove_cvref)
# error "__has_builtin (__remove_cvref) failed"
#endif
+#if !__has_builtin (__is_pointer)
+# error "__has_builtin (__is_pointer) failed"
+#endif
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..d6e39565950
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_pointer.C
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+#define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X)
+
+SA(!__is_pointer(int));
+SA(__is_pointer(int*));
+SA(__is_pointer(int**));
+
+SA(__is_pointer(const int*));
+SA(__is_pointer(const int**));
+SA(__is_pointer(int* const));
+SA(__is_pointer(int** const));
+SA(__is_pointer(int* const* const));
+
+SA(__is_pointer(volatile int*));
+SA(__is_pointer(volatile int**));
+SA(__is_pointer(int* volatile));
+SA(__is_pointer(int** volatile));
+SA(__is_pointer(int* volatile* volatile));
+
+SA(__is_pointer(const volatile int*));
+SA(__is_pointer(const volatile int**));
+SA(__is_pointer(const int* volatile));
+SA(__is_pointer(volatile int* const));
+SA(__is_pointer(int* const volatile));
+SA(__is_pointer(const int** volatile));
+SA(__is_pointer(volatile int** const));
+SA(__is_pointer(int** const
