[Bug libstdc++/34730] New: Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[Bug libstdc++/34730] New: Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[dominik dot strasser at onespin-solutions dot com]

The attached C++ source is AFAICS legal C++.
However it doesn't compile with the debug libstdc++, as the debug code assumes
that each given set can be compared with the passed compare operator.


-- 
           Summary: Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dominik dot strasser at onespin-solutions dot com
 GCC build triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
  GCC host triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[dominik dot strasser at onespin-solutions dot com]

------- Comment #1 from dominik dot strasser at onespin-solutions dot com  2008-01-10 15:28 -------
Created an attachment (id=14909)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14909&action=view)
Source code showing the problem


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2008-01-10 15:59 -------
Interesting. I agree the code is legal, on the other hand, we want to check the
required ordering... Would it be ok to you to have the check moved to
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC??


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |pcarlini at suse dot de
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2008-01-10 15:59:22
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2008-01-10 16:10 -------
Hi Doug. As the main author of our debug-mode, I'd like to know your opinion
about this issue... On one hand, in the actual algorithm we are not comparing
values from the same range, on the other hand, clearly the specifications
require ordering, thus we may want to check it...


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |doug dot gregor at gmail dot
                   |                            |com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2008-01-10 20:04 -------
Thinking more about this issue, probably a more sophisticated solution would be
running the checks only when the value_types are equal. I'll try to prepare
something.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-11 18:05 -------

Paolo, as a quick aside, you might find it useful to look at the concept GCC
library sources for stuff like this.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2008-01-12 18:12 -------
Thanks for the suggestion, Benjamin. Actually, I don't think we can much better
*without* concepts... Anyway, was thinking that the ordering check is already
impossible to do in other circumstances, like real (single pass) input
iterators, therefore, we have probably to live with that and reconsider the
issue together with concepts, as you are saying.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2008-01-12 18:23 -------
Eh! Interestingly, conceptgcc explicitly enforces the concept that the two
value types must equal! Exactly the case that is covered but my almost-ready
patch.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-13 01:35 -------
Subject: Bug 34730

Author: paolo
Date: Sun Jan 13 01:34:58 2008
New Revision: 131500

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131500
Log:
2008-01-12  Paolo Carlini  <pcarlini@suse.de>

        PR libstdc++/34730
        * include/debug/functions.h (__check_sorted_set,
        __check_sorted_set_aux): Add.
        (__check_sorted): Check StrictWeakOrdering.
        * include/debug/macros.h (__glibcxx_check_strict_weak_ordering,
        __glibcxx_check_strict_weak_ordering_pred): Remove.
        (__glibcxx_check_sorted, __glibcxx_check_sorted_pred): Adjust.
        (__glibcxx_check_sorted_set, __glibcxx_check_sorted_set_pred): Add.
        * include/debug/debug.h (__glibcxx_requires_sorted_set,
        __glibcxx_requires_sorted_set_pred): Add.
        * include/bits/stl_algo.h (merge, includes, set_union,
        set_intersection, set_difference, set_symmetric_difference):
        Adjust, use __glibcxx_requires_sorted_set* instead. 
        * testsuite/25_algorithms/set_intersection/34730.cc: New.

Added:
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/25_algorithms/set_intersection/34730.cc
Modified:
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/debug.h
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/functions.h
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/macros.h


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2008-01-13 01:36 -------
Fixed.


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-14 16:45 -------

Yes, I noticed the much more accurate (and explicit) requirements on
types/algos in concept gcc when hashing through the initial parallel mode work.
I found it very helpful as an implementation (or reimplementation) guide . 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730

[Bug libstdc++/34730] Legal program doesn't compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[dominik dot strasser at onespin-solutions dot com]

------- Comment #11 from dominik dot strasser at onespin-solutions dot com  2009-05-20 14:58 -------
Works fine, thanks.


-- 

dominik dot strasser at onespin-solutions dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |VERIFIED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34730