public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "kamkaz at windowslive dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/110952] New: Allocator::pointer is required to be implicitly convertible from and into a native pointer Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 21:58:38 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-110952-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110952 Bug ID: 110952 Summary: Allocator::pointer is required to be implicitly convertible from and into a native pointer Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kamkaz at windowslive dot com Target Milestone: --- For std::list and containers based on _Rb_tree (std::(multi_)set, std::(multi_)map) there are some non-standard requirements currently imposed on `std::allocator_traits<Allocator>::pointer` type. In the implementation of these containers, this pointer type (which might be a fancy_pointer) is required to be implicitly convertible from and into native pointers, which in this case are equivalent to `std::pointer_traits<pointer>::element_type *`. This bug is present in all the GCC versions I managed to test, from 6.2 until 13.2. The proper way to convert from/into these custom pointer types is to use: - std::__to_address(__ptr) to obtain the native pointer (which either calls `__ptr.operator->()` or `std::pointer_traits<pointer>::to_address(__ptr)`) - std::pointer_traits<pointer>::pointer_to(*__ptr) to get back the potentially "fancy" pointer. This proper way of handling allocator pointer is already implemented in std::forward_list. To fix this bug, the following changes must be made: In bits/stl_tree.h: Current: protected: _Link_type _M_get_node() { return _Alloc_traits::allocate(_M_get_Node_allocator(), 1); } void _M_put_node(_Link_type __p) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT { _Alloc_traits::deallocate(_M_get_Node_allocator(), __p, 1); } Fixed: protected: _Link_type _M_get_node() { auto __ptr = _Alloc_traits::allocate(_M_get_Node_allocator(), 1); return std::__to_address(__ptr); } void _M_put_node(_Link_type __p) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT { typedef typename _Alloc_traits::pointer _Ptr; auto __ptr = std::pointer_traits<_Ptr>::pointer_to(*__p); _Alloc_traits::deallocate(_M_get_Node_allocator(), __ptr, 1); } In bits/stl_list.h: Current: typename _Node_alloc_traits::pointer _M_get_node() { return _Node_alloc_traits::allocate(_M_impl, 1); } void _M_put_node(typename _Node_alloc_traits::pointer __p) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT { _Node_alloc_traits::deallocate(_M_impl, __p, 1); } Fixed: typename _Node_alloc_traits::value_type* _M_get_node() { auto __ptr = _Node_alloc_traits::allocate(_M_impl, 1); return std::__to_address(__ptr); } void _M_put_node(typename _Node_alloc_traits::value_type* __p) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT { typedef typename _Node_alloc_traits::pointer _Ptr; auto __ptr = std::pointer_traits<_Ptr>::pointer_to(*__p); _Node_alloc_traits::deallocate(_M_impl, __ptr, 1); } This fix does not goes along with the coding style (81 characters in a line), it might require some extra typedefs. It is NOT a duplicate of Bug 57272 - it's not about the internal representation of the nodes, just handling and requirements imposed on the allocator pointer. There are no ABI issues here that I can think of. There is a minuscule possibility it might be a breaking change for someone - if their Fancy Pointer's implicit conversions behaved differently than its `pointer_to` and `.operator->()` (or if they didn't provide them and relied on implicit conversions, which are not part of the standard). Here there is a small example reproducing the issue: https://godbolt.org/z/fnno3jGYs Note, that if implicit construction from `T*` and `operator T*()` are added to the fancy pointer type, the example compiles. (Yes, ppointer there doesn't meet the requirement of RandomAccessIterator that is required for Allocator::pointer. However, since these functionalities are not used by the mentioned containers, it doesn't matter here).
next reply other threads:[~2023-08-08 21:58 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-08-08 21:58 kamkaz at windowslive dot com [this message] 2023-08-09 12:42 ` [Bug libstdc++/110952] " redi 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-110952-4@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: linkBe 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).