From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2053D3858D20; Fri,  3 Feb 2023 10:08:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2053D3858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675418891;
	bh=Aqf4KhYGbxpj+qyngk5I4CNCtRsDuLWCRfnJ/nszQG4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=gCWBlhv3hfDsHN6sFxrxUxnSDe7lWFu7x9mjeVKUqZICqxKvFBItIJbT7Z1uDKYsL
	 +cq2Mz3MVPGZaAAatfaUBKBZL9rJ/SKclQBaRjV784jyLpbXjPr2SIMPQsPdoaAy34
	 COIe1I8xv7V/AheBzwKc1GPLpp8BD6ECMqaedOK4=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/108645] Change in behavior, std::accumulate doesn't
 always work as expected in C++20 builds
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:08:11 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108645-4-6SCdpTdY0A@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108645-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108645-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108645

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> In your example, all your strings fit in the SSO buffer inside the
> std::string object, so the LHS has sufficient capacity for the result.

Actually that's only true until the last step of the algorithm. On the last
step (when appending "example" to "this_is_an_") neither the LHS nor the RHS
has capacity for the result, so a reallocation is needed. But it's true that
the RHS has nothing to steal at any step in the algorithm, so we append to =
the
LHS and let that reallocate itself if needed.

> And
> there's nothing to steal from the RHS anyway, as it doesn't own any
> allocated memory.=