* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2021-12-17 4:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17 10:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-17 4:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |needs-bisection,
| |needs-reduction
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks to be fixed in GCC 10.2.0 and above.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2021-12-17 4:53 ` [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-17 10:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17 10:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-17 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed by r11-1571 and r10-8343, although I'm not sure how that affected it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2021-12-17 4:53 ` [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17 10:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-17 10:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17 10:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-17 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed by r11-1571 and r10-8343, although I'm not sure how that affected it.
I suspect it is the tsubst_pack_expansion change.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-17 10:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-17 10:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17 10:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-17 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > Fixed by r11-1571 and r10-8343, although I'm not sure how that affected it.
>
> I suspect it is the tsubst_pack_expansion change.
Just like what helped PR 58354 (and all of those dups).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-17 10:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-17 10:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17 10:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-17 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Before that commit, the zip(as, bs) deduced the type as zip<vector<int>,
vector<int>>, rather than zip<vector<int>&, vector<int>&>.
So:
(In reply to Mikael Persson from comment #0)
> GCC does not change values in tuple of references
Is wrong. There isn't a tuple of references there at all, that's why the
changes were not visible in the original obejcts. The zip created its own
copies, and then those were modified.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-17 10:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-17 10:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17 10:51 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-17 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reduced:
template<typename T> struct add_pointer { using type = T*; };
template<typename T> struct add_pointer<T&> { using type = T*; };
template<typename T> struct add_pointer<T&&> { using type = T*; };
template<typename T> using add_pointer_t = typename add_pointer<T>::type;
template<typename... T> struct first { };
template<typename T, typename... U> struct first<T, U...> { using type = T; };
template<typename... T> using first_t = typename first<T...>::type;
template <typename... Containers>
struct zip
{
template <typename... Container_types>
zip(Containers... containers) : containers_{ &containers... } { }
add_pointer_t<first_t<Containers...>> containers_[sizeof...(Containers)];
};
template <typename... Container_types>
zip(Container_types&&... containers) -> zip<Container_types...>;
struct vector { int i = 0; };
int main()
{
vector v1, v2;
zip z(v1, v2);
z.containers_[0]->i = 1;
z.containers_[1]->i = 2;
if (v1.i == 0)
throw 1;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-17 10:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-17 10:51 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-19 7:54 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-17 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.1 isn't using the deduction guide at all, it seems to prefer to deduce
the class type using the zip(Containers...) constructor, which deduces
non-reference types.
If I change the deduction guide to:
template <typename... Container_types>
zip(Container_types&&... containers) -> zip<int>;
Then GCC 10.1 still compiles it, because it doesn't use that guide anyway.
Whereas GCC 10.2 gives an error, because it does deduce as zip<int> and so
z.containers_[0]->i is invalid.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-17 10:51 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-19 7:54 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
2021-12-19 13:00 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com @ 2021-12-19 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Persson <mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com> ---
Thats great.
Saw the dates on the other pr, jikes this has been around a while.
Testing
z.containers_[0]->i is clever, ill add a test for that ( or more generally
z.containers_[0]->begin(), static_assert if i can figure out how.
Is there a way to make the syntax for a zip iterator
for(auto& [a,b...] :zip(...))? So
for(auto [a,...] : zip(...)) Would create local copies as expected?
As is i renamed it to zip::view, which seemed easier to read. ( And fixed a
bunch of other things too, but adding static assert clang only meant its
been practically unused. In particular as clang is still horrendously slow
for std::random compared to gcc. )
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021, 11:51 redi at gcc dot gnu.org, <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> GCC 10.1 isn't using the deduction guide at all, it seems to prefer to
> deduce
> the class type using the zip(Containers...) constructor, which deduces
> non-reference types.
>
> If I change the deduction guide to:
>
> template <typename... Container_types>
> zip(Container_types&&... containers) -> zip<int>;
>
> Then GCC 10.1 still compiles it, because it doesn't use that guide anyway.
> Whereas GCC 10.2 gives an error, because it does deduce as zip<int> and so
> z.containers_[0]->i is invalid.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-19 7:54 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
@ 2021-12-19 13:00 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-19 15:03 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
2021-12-20 7:05 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-19 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can't you just change your constructor to this?
zip(Containers&&... containers) :
containers_(std::forward<Containers>(containers)...) { }
The problematic deduction seems to only happen because of the odd constructor
with an unused parameter pack that gets deduced as empty.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-19 13:00 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-19 15:03 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
2021-12-20 7:05 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com @ 2021-12-19 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Persson <mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com> ---
Looking at it now, not sure why i didnt.
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021, 14:00 redi at gcc dot gnu.org, <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Can't you just change your constructor to this?
>
> zip(Containers&&... containers) :
> containers_(std::forward<Containers>(containers)...) { }
>
>
> The problematic deduction seems to only happen because of the odd
> constructor
> with an unused parameter pack that gets deduced as empty.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/91780] Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.
[not found] <bug-91780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-19 15:03 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
@ 2021-12-20 7:05 ` mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com @ 2021-12-20 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Persson <mikael.p.persson at gmail dot com> ---
Ah right lifetime
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021, 16:02 Mikael Persson, <mikael.p.persson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Looking at it now, not sure why i didnt.
>
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021, 14:00 redi at gcc dot gnu.org, <
> gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
>>
>> --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>> Can't you just change your constructor to this?
>>
>> zip(Containers&&... containers) :
>> containers_(std::forward<Containers>(containers)...) { }
>>
>>
>> The problematic deduction seems to only happen because of the odd
>> constructor
>> with an unused parameter pack that gets deduced as empty.
>>
>> --
>> You are receiving this mail because:
>> You reported the bug.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread