public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
Cc: "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Fix move_if_noexcept usages in _Hashtable
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:38:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181204143836.GC27131@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <696186d1-b00c-4c42-6228-f00bba8e40ff@gmail.com>

On 04/12/18 07:45 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
>Hi
>
>  This patch fix a minor problem with usage of std::move_if_noexcept. 
>We use it to move node content if move construtor is noexcept but we 
>eventually use the allocator_type::construct method which might be 
>slightly different. I think it is better to check for this method 
>noexcept qualification.

This is likely to pessimize some code, since most allocators do not
have an exception-specification on their construct members.

>  Moreover I have added a special overload for nodes containing a 
>std::pair. It is supposed to allow move semantic in associative 
>containers where Key is stored as const deleting std::pair move 
>constructor. In this case we should still move the Value part.
>
>  It doesn't work for the moment because the std::pair piecewise 
>constructor has no noexcept qualification. Is there any plan to add it 
>? I think adding it will force including <tuple> in stl_pair.h, is it 
>fine ?
>
>  If this evolution is accepted I'll adapt it for _Rb_tree that has 
>the same problem.
>
>  Working on this I also notice that content of initialization_list is 
>not moved. Is there a plan to make initialization_list iterator type 
>like move_iterator ? Should containers use 
>__make_move_iterator_if_noexcept ?

No.

Whether to allow moving from std::initializer_list is an active topic,
see
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1249r0.html

>  Tested under Linux x86_64 normal mode.
>
>  Ok to commit this first step ?

No, this is not suitable for stage 3. It seems too risky.

We can reconsider it during stage 1, but I'd like to see (at least) a
new test showing a bug with the current code. For example, a type with
a move constructor that is noexcept, but when used with a
scoped_allocator_adaptor (which calls something other than the move
constructor) we incorrectly move elements, and lose data when an
exception happens.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-12-04 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-04  6:45 François Dumont
2018-12-04 14:38 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2018-12-04 21:43   ` François Dumont
2018-12-16 18:10     ` François Dumont

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=20181204143836.GC27131@redhat.com \
    --to=jwakely@redhat.com \
    --cc=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=libstdc++@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: 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).