From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-391007-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9204 invoked by alias); 6 May 2012 11:22:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 9194 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2012 11:22:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 May 2012 11:22:03 +0000
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/53248] std::array<T,0> doesn't work when T is not default-constructible
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 11:41:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53248-4-Etubasjme8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00625.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53248

--- Comment #3 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot =
com> 2012-05-06 11:21:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Daniel, can you see other options besides adding a specialization? (which=
 would
> be a straightforward task, I may even get around to do pretty soon when I=
 will
> do debug-mode std::array, already in my todo list)

I haven't implemented it completely, but an alternative to a partial
specialization could be something like the following:

template <class T, size_t N>
struct __array_data_traits
{
  typedef T type[N];
};

template <class T>
struct __array_data_traits<T, 0>
{
  struct type {};
};

template <class T, size_t N>
struct array
{
  typename __array_data_traits<T, N>::type elems;
};

array<int, 1> ai1 =3D {1};
array<int, 1> ai1b =3D {};
array<int, 0> ai0 =3D {};

The sole (?) disadvantage of this approach would be that
std::is_empty<array<int, 0>> does not evaluate to true. But all the
specialization-relevant logic could also be added to __array_data_traits in
terms of static (constexpr where possible) functions.

Technically the traits-based approach would be preferable, because otherwis=
e I
see the risk that user-code that itself would try to specialize std::array =
with
some T for a user-provided type could notice the difference. Consider:

// Within Library:
template <class T, size_t N>
struct array
{
  T elems[N];
};

template <class T>
struct array<T, 0>
{
};

// User world:
struct User {};

template <size_t N>
struct array<User, N>
{
  User elems[N > 0 ? N : 1];
};

array<User, 0> au0 =3D {}; // Error, ambiguous

The problem with the current library wording is that it does not *explicitl=
y*
allow a *specialization* for std::array (in contrast to vector<bool> or to
numeric_limits for cv-variations of the actual type), therefore I believe t=
hat
from the current wording state a partial-specialization by the library is
borderline to invalid, at least a gray zone, because of the need to support
[namespace.std] p1.

If a library issue should be submitted, I would suggest to provide the libr=
ary
the freedom for providing a special for the zero-size case.