public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/102780] Checking constraints using large fold expression is slow
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 13:26:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-102780-4-gTZ93nmdM4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-102780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102780

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
In the real code, I find that a separate constrained specialization like this:


template<typename T, typename... U>
union variadic_union<T, U...>
{
  T first;
  variadic_union<U...> rest;

  static constexpr int size = variadic_union<U...>::size + 1;
};

template<typename T, typename... U>
requires (!trivially_destructible<T, U...>)
union variadic_union<T, U...>
{
  variadic_union(const variadic_union&) = default;
  variadic_union(variadic_union&&) = default;
  variadic_union& operator=(const variadic_union&) = default;
  variadic_union& operator=(variadic_union&&) = default;

  // Non-trivial dtor is required for this partial specialization
  constexpr ~variadic_union()
  { }

  T first;
  variadic_union<U...> rest;

  static constexpr int size = variadic_union<U...>::size + 1;
};


Is much faster (14s instead of 20s+) than a constrained destructor in the
primary template:

template<typename T, typename... U>
union variadic_union<T, U...>
{
  variadic_union(const variadic_union&) = default;
  variadic_union(variadic_union&&) = default;
  variadic_union& operator=(const variadic_union&) = default;
  variadic_union& operator=(variadic_union&&) = default;

  ~variadic_union() = default;

  // Conditionally non-trivial dtor, if required.
  constexpr ~variadic_union() requires (!trivially_destructible<T, U...>)
  { }

  T first;
  variadic_union<U...> rest;

  static constexpr int size = variadic_union<U...>::size + 1;
};


I haven't been able to reproduce that time difference in the reduced examples
though.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-10-15 13:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-15 13:12 [Bug c++/102780] New: " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-15 13:14 ` [Bug c++/102780] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-15 13:26 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-10-15 14:32 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-28 14:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-28 14:49 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16 21:11 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16 21:14 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16 23:57 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-07  1:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-102780-4-gTZ93nmdM4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).