From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] define auto_vec copy ctor and assignment (PR 90904)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:43:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <118e90d5-fb85-43ad-d0bc-66ac4d35225d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dbc7ccdc-8bca-56ed-0d22-a599910e45fb@gmail.com>
On 6/28/21 2:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 6/28/21 2:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:36 AM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/25/21 4:11 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/21 4:51 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/21 3:38 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/21 3:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/21 2:53 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/27/21 11:52 AM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/21 8:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/21 1:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:46 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
>>>>>>>>>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR 90904 notes that auto_vec is unsafe to copy and assign
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the class manages its own memory but doesn't define (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> delete)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either special function. Since I first ran into the problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> auto_vec has grown a move ctor and move assignment from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a dynamically-allocated vec but still no copy ctor or copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assignment operator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The attached patch adds the two special functions to auto_vec
>>>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a few simple tests. It makes auto_vec safe to use in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that expect copyable and assignable element types and passes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bootstrap
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and regression testing on x86_64-linux.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether we want such uses to appear since those
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be quite inefficient? Thus the option is to delete those
>>>>>>>>>>>> operators?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would strongly prefer the generic vector class to have the
>>>>>>>>>>> properties
>>>>>>>>>>> expected of any other generic container: copyable and
>>>>>>>>>>> assignable. If
>>>>>>>>>>> we also want another vector type with this restriction I suggest
>>>>>>>>>>> to add
>>>>>>>>>>> another "noncopyable" type and make that property explicit in
>>>>>>>>>>> its name.
>>>>>>>>>>> I can submit one in a followup patch if you think we need one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure (and not strictly against the copy and assign).
>>>>>>>>>> Looking around
>>>>>>>>>> I see that vec<> does not do deep copying. Making auto_vec<>
>>>>>>>>>> do it
>>>>>>>>>> might be surprising (I added the move capability to match how
>>>>>>>>>> vec<>
>>>>>>>>>> is used - as "reference" to a vector)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vec base classes are special: they have no ctors at all
>>>>>>>>> (because
>>>>>>>>> of their use in unions). That's something we might have to
>>>>>>>>> live with
>>>>>>>>> but it's not a model to follow in ordinary containers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think we have to live with it anymore, now that we're
>>>>>>>> writing C++11.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The auto_vec class was introduced to fill the need for a
>>>>>>>>> conventional
>>>>>>>>> sequence container with a ctor and dtor. The missing copy ctor
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> assignment operators were an oversight, not a deliberate feature.
>>>>>>>>> This change fixes that oversight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The revised patch also adds a copy ctor/assignment to the auto_vec
>>>>>>>>> primary template (that's also missing it). In addition, it adds
>>>>>>>>> a new class called auto_vec_ncopy that disables copying and
>>>>>>>>> assignment as you prefer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm, adding another class doesn't really help with the confusion
>>>>>>>> richi mentions. And many uses of auto_vec will pass them as vec,
>>>>>>>> which will still do a shallow copy. I think it's probably better
>>>>>>>> to disable the copy special members for auto_vec until we fix
>>>>>>>> vec<>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are at least a couple of problems that get in the way of
>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>> all of vec to act like a well-behaved C++ container:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) The embedded vec has a trailing "flexible" array member with its
>>>>>>> instances having different size. They're initialized by memset and
>>>>>>> copied by memcpy. The class can't have copy ctors or assignments
>>>>>>> but it should disable/delete them instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) The heap-based vec is used throughout GCC with the assumption of
>>>>>>> shallow copy semantics (not just as function arguments but also as
>>>>>>> members of other such POD classes). This can be changed by
>>>>>>> providing
>>>>>>> copy and move ctors and assignment operators for it, and also for
>>>>>>> some of the classes in which it's a member and that are used with
>>>>>>> the same assumption.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) The heap-based vec::block_remove() assumes its elements are PODs.
>>>>>>> That breaks in VEC_ORDERED_REMOVE_IF (used in gcc/dwarf2cfi.c:2862
>>>>>>> and tree-vect-patterns.c).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I took a stab at both and while (1) is easy, (2) is shaping up to
>>>>>>> be a big and tricky project. Tricky because it involves using
>>>>>>> std::move in places where what's moved is subsequently still used.
>>>>>>> I can keep plugging away at it but it won't change the fact that
>>>>>>> the embedded and heap-based vecs have different requirements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't seem to me that having a safely copyable auto_vec needs
>>>>>>> to be put on hold until the rats nest above is untangled. It won't
>>>>>>> make anything worse than it is. (I have a project that depends on
>>>>>>> a sane auto_vec working).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A couple of alternatives to solving this are to use std::vector or
>>>>>>> write an equivalent vector class just for GCC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It occurs to me that another way to work around the issue of passing
>>>>>> an auto_vec by value as a vec, and thus doing a shallow copy, would
>>>>>> be to add a vec ctor taking an auto_vec, and delete that. This would
>>>>>> mean if you want to pass an auto_vec to a vec interface, it needs to
>>>>>> be by reference. We might as well do the same for operator=, though
>>>>>> that isn't as important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, that sounds like a good idea. Attached is an implementation
>>>>> of this change. Since the auto_vec copy ctor and assignment have
>>>>> been deleted by someone else in the interim, this patch doesn't
>>>>> reverse that. I will propose it separately after these changes
>>>>> are finalized.
>>>>>
>>>>> My approach was to 1) disable the auto_vec to vec conversion,
>>>>> 2) introduce an auto_vec::to_vec() to make the conversion possible
>>>>> explicitly, and 3) resolve compilation errors by either changing
>>>>> APIs to take a vec by reference or callers to convert auto_vec to
>>>>> vec explicitly by to_vec(). In (3) I tried to minimize churn while
>>>>> improving the const-correctness of the APIs.
>>>>
>>>> What did you base the choice between reference or to_vec on? For
>>>> instance, it seems like c_parser_declaration_or_fndef could use a
>>>> reference, but you changed the callers instead.
>>>
>>> I went with a reference whenever I could. That doesn't work when
>>> there are callers that pass in a vNULL, so there, and in assignments,
>>> I used to_vec().
>>
>> Is there a way to "fix" the ugliness with vNULL? All those functions
>> should be able to use const vec<>& as otherwise they'd leak memory?
>> Can't we pass vNULL to a const vec<>&?
>
> vNULL can bind to a const vec& (via the vec conversion ctor) but
> not to vec&. The three functions that in the patch are passed
> vNULL modify the argument when it's not vNULL but not otherwise.
The c_parser_declaration_or_fndef case is rather ugly: the vec is passed
by value, but then the modifications in c_finish_omp_declare_simd modify
the original vec.
We could keep the same semantic problem and make it more blatant by
changing to const vec& and doing a const_cast in
c_finish_omp_declare_simd before modifying the vec.
Do the other two have the same problem?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-29 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-26 23:30 Martin Sebor
2021-04-27 7:58 ` Richard Biener
2021-04-27 13:58 ` Martin Sebor
2021-04-27 14:04 ` Richard Biener
2021-04-27 15:52 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-03 21:50 ` [PING][PATCH] " Martin Sebor
2021-05-11 20:02 ` [PING 2][PATCH] " Martin Sebor
2021-05-27 19:33 ` [PING 3][PATCH] " Martin Sebor
2021-05-27 20:53 ` [PATCH] " Jason Merrill
2021-06-01 19:56 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-01 21:38 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-25 20:51 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-25 22:11 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-25 22:36 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-28 8:07 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-28 18:07 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-29 10:58 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-29 11:34 ` Martin Jambor
2021-06-30 1:46 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-30 8:48 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-30 9:29 ` Martin Jambor
2021-07-06 15:06 ` [PING][PATCH] " Martin Sebor
2021-07-07 7:28 ` Richard Biener
2021-07-07 14:37 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-12 11:02 ` Richard Biener
2021-07-13 14:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-07-13 18:37 ` Jason Merrill
2021-07-13 20:02 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-14 3:39 ` Jason Merrill
2021-07-14 10:47 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-07-14 14:46 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-14 16:23 ` Jason Merrill
2021-07-20 18:34 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-20 20:08 ` Jason Merrill
2021-07-20 21:52 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-27 18:56 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-30 15:06 ` Jason Merrill
2021-08-06 2:07 ` Martin Sebor
2021-08-06 7:52 ` Christophe Lyon
2021-08-06 12:17 ` Christophe Lyon
2021-07-14 14:44 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-29 14:43 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2021-06-29 17:18 ` [PATCH] " Martin Sebor
2021-06-30 8:40 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-30 9:00 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-06-30 12:01 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-28 8:05 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-29 12:30 ` Trevor Saunders
2021-06-02 6:55 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-02 16:04 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-03 8:29 ` Trevor Saunders
2021-06-07 8:51 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-07 10:33 ` Trevor Saunders
2021-06-07 13:33 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-07 20:34 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-08 3:26 ` Trevor Saunders
2021-06-08 7:19 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-07 22:17 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-08 2:41 ` Trevor Saunders
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=118e90d5-fb85-43ad-d0bc-66ac4d35225d@redhat.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=msebor@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/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: link
Be 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).