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 086643858C5E; Mon,  5 Feb 2024 10:55:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 086643858C5E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707130529;
	bh=ToX07P+/gMkZ8VsNSp9QsQJpx0NUdwT9I4EbEq/baEE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=E5UEGV1JTusQB4X4Nl+CbTMVgKQIhAXRA84KWd63Tt/e73+fNWZZy/uLqQMpsPOXK
	 LYZ8bC+rHCs53jAqg80hE0wqclmmM8u3sp87Jo5Umgz3puuhZLTMrDBhaX+Cb5znen
	 15fR8b3ny1iFXTxs4nmcP/ecX7iXdvGMhQEBVxG8=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/113761] piecewise_constant_distribution's
 initializer_list constructor is not correct for `size < 2`
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 10:55:28 +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: 12.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-113761-4-7mOeoneF2P@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113761-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113761-4@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=3D113761

--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> It seems like libstdc++ miss that part, I wonder if it changed ...

No, it didn't change. We've just always had that bug. Well, not quite alway=
s,
looks like it was a regression in r0-94140-gf8dd9e0de06aef which added the
reserve call.

It's easy enough to fix:


--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/random.tcc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/random.tcc
@@ -2877,10 +2877,10 @@ namespace __detail
       param_type(initializer_list<_RealType> __bl, _Func __fw)
       : _M_int(), _M_den(), _M_cp()
       {
-       _M_int.reserve(__bl.size());
-       for (auto __biter =3D __bl.begin(); __biter !=3D __bl.end(); ++__bi=
ter)
-         _M_int.push_back(*__biter);
+       if (__bl.size() < 2)
+         return;

+       _M_int =3D __bl;
        _M_den.reserve(_M_int.size() - 1);
        for (size_t __k =3D 0; __k < _M_int.size() - 1; ++__k)
          _M_den.push_back(__fw(0.5 * (_M_int[__k + 1] + _M_int[__k])));


But I don't understand why piecewise_constant_distribution is implemented t=
his
way:

  template<typename _RealType>
    void
    piecewise_constant_distribution<_RealType>::param_type::
    _M_initialize()
    {
      if (_M_int.size() < 2
          || (_M_int.size() =3D=3D 2
              && _M_int[0] =3D=3D _RealType(0)
              && _M_int[1] =3D=3D _RealType(1)))
        {
          _M_int.clear();
          _M_den.clear();
          return;
        }

And then:

        std::vector<_RealType>
        intervals() const
        {
          if (_M_int.empty())
            {
              std::vector<_RealType> __tmp(2);
              __tmp[1] =3D _RealType(1);
              return __tmp;
            }
          else
            return _M_int;
        }

        std::vector<double>
        densities() const
        { return _M_den.empty() ? std::vector<double>(1, 1.0) : _M_den; }

This seems incredibly wasteful, why keep reallocating a new vector instead =
of
just populating _M_int with {1} and _M_den with {0,1}? Paolo did that in
r0-103705-g879b9073c87cea and it makes no sense to me, I'll see if the mail=
ing
list has any clues.

Also, we're missing https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue1439 which fixed t=
he
return type of densities()=