public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
@ 2022-10-03 17:41 unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 19:28 ` [Bug libstdc++/107135] " arsen at aarsen dot me
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: unlvsur at live dot com @ 2022-10-03 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
Bug ID: 107135
Summary: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for
freestanding C++
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: unlvsur at live dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 53658
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53658&action=edit
array diff
Looks like array and span are GCC extensions to be in freestanding. That is
fine.
However, I think at() method has little chance to be in the future freestanding
C++ standard. I suggest that we should guard against those methods to prevent
potential issues forwarding compatibility issues.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
@ 2022-10-03 19:28 ` arsen at aarsen dot me
2022-10-03 19:40 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: arsen at aarsen dot me @ 2022-10-03 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
Arsen Arsenović <arsen at aarsen dot me> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |arsen at aarsen dot me
--- Comment #1 from Arsen Arsenović <arsen at aarsen dot me> ---
I'm not so sure, exceptions are explicitly mentioned (and specified to just
std::terminate if not possible/disabled) in P1642. The paper defers handling
these headers for later. With the exceptions note in mind, what forward
compatibility issue do you have in mind?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 19:28 ` [Bug libstdc++/107135] " arsen at aarsen dot me
@ 2022-10-03 19:40 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-03 20:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-03 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We should make it terminate though, there's no definition of
__throw_out_of_range_fmt.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 19:28 ` [Bug libstdc++/107135] " arsen at aarsen dot me
2022-10-03 19:40 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-10-03 20:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-03 20:26 ` unlvsur at live dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-03 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 53662
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53662&action=edit
Define <bits/functexcept.h> function for freestanding
I think I prefer this direction.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-10-03 20:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-10-03 20:26 ` unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 20:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: unlvsur at live dot com @ 2022-10-03 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur <unlvsur at live dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Created attachment 53662 [details]
> Define <bits/functexcept.h> function for freestanding
>
> I think I prefer this direction.
Well i guess it would only work for sub classes of logic_error and bad_alloc.
Herb Sutter said those EH will be terminate in the future even it is for
hosted? I think a consistent behavior between freestanding and hosted are very
important. Speaking the same words with different languages is just like
spelling Chinese Words for Japanese Words, they are super confusing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-10-03 20:26 ` unlvsur at live dot com
@ 2022-10-03 20:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-03 20:49 ` unlvsur at live dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-03 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #53662|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 53663
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53663&action=edit
Define <bits/functexcept.h> function for freestanding
This one actually works correctly.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-10-03 20:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-10-03 20:49 ` unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 20:50 ` unlvsur at live dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: unlvsur at live dot com @ 2022-10-03 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur <unlvsur at live dot com> ---
Comment on attachment 53663
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53663
Define <bits/functexcept.h> function for freestanding
std::terminate() or std::abort() or __builtin_trap()??
std::terminate() has the issue of set_terminate() which causes trouble.
GCC optimizes __builtin_trap() best but it is not standard.
What about __builtin_abort()???
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2022-10-03 20:49 ` unlvsur at live dot com
@ 2022-10-03 20:50 ` unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-04 14:07 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-04 14:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: unlvsur at live dot com @ 2022-10-03 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur <unlvsur at live dot com> ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> Comment on attachment 53663 [details]
> Define <bits/functexcept.h> function for freestanding
>
> std::terminate() or std::abort() or __builtin_trap()??
>
> std::terminate() has the issue of set_terminate() which causes trouble.
>
> GCC optimizes __builtin_trap() best but it is not standard.
>
> What about __builtin_abort()???
maybe we could just mark std::terminate as weak?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-10-03 20:50 ` unlvsur at live dot com
@ 2022-10-04 14:07 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-04 14:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-04 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely <redi@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d8189882fc89f6f410fc9bcf0f8226787316f83
commit r13-3058-g7d8189882fc89f6f410fc9bcf0f8226787316f83
Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Oct 3 20:53:35 2022 +0100
libstdc++: Define <bits/functexcept.h> functions for freestanding
[PR107135]
We don't compile src/c++11/functexcept.cc for freestanding, so just
define the functions used by freestanding entities as inline calls to
std::terminate.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/107135
* include/bits/functexcept.h [!_GLIBCXX_HOSTED]
(__throw_invalid_argument, __throw_out_of_range)
(__throw_out_of_range_fmt, __throw_runtime_error)
(__throw_overflow_error): Define inline.
* include/std/bitset (_M_copy_from_ptr) [!_GLIBCXX_HOSTED]:
Replace __builtin_abort with __throw_invalid_argument.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107135] array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-10-04 14:07 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-10-04 14:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-04 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed. Doing something other than std::terminate is a decision for another day.
For now, the freestanding environment needs to provide abort().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-04 14:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-10-03 17:41 [Bug libstdc++/107135] New: array<T>::at() method should not be in <array> for freestanding C++ unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 19:28 ` [Bug libstdc++/107135] " arsen at aarsen dot me
2022-10-03 19:40 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-03 20:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-03 20:26 ` unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 20:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-03 20:49 ` unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-03 20:50 ` unlvsur at live dot com
2022-10-04 14:07 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-04 14:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
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).