Hi

Looks like a great finding to me, this is indeed a useless check, thanks!

Have you any figures on the performance enhancement ? It might help to 
get proper approval as gcc is currently in dev stage 4 that is to say 
only bug fixes normally.

François

On 17/01/2024 09:11, Huanghui Nie wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> When I implemented a hash table with reference to the C++ STL, I found 
> that when the hash table in the C++ STL deletes elements, if the first 
> element deleted is the begin element, the before begin node is 
> repeatedly assigned. This creates unnecessary performance overhead.
>
>
> First, let’s see the code implementation:
>
> In _M_remove_bucket_begin, _M_before_begin._M_nxt is assigned when 
> &_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt]. That also means 
> _M_buckets[__bkt]->_M_nxt is assigned under some conditions.
>
> _M_remove_bucket_begin is called by _M_erase and _M_extract_node:
>
>  1. Case _M_erase a range: _M_remove_bucket_begin is called in a for
>     loop when __is_bucket_begin is true. And if __is_bucket_begin is
>     true and &_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt], __prev_n must be
>     &_M_before_begin. __prev_n->_M_nxt is always assigned in _M_erase.
>     That means _M_before_begin._M_nxt is always assigned, if
>     _M_remove_bucket_begin is called and &_M_before_begin ==
>     _M_buckets[__bkt]. So there’s no need to assign
>     _M_before_begin._M_nxt in _M_remove_bucket_begin.
>  2. Other cases: _M_remove_bucket_begin is called when __prev_n ==
>     _M_buckets[__bkt]. And __prev_n->_M_nxt is always assigned in
>     _M_erase and _M_before_begin. That means _M_buckets[__bkt]->_M_nxt
>     is always assigned. So there's no need to assign
>     _M_buckets[__bkt]->_M_nxt in _M_remove_bucket_begin.
>
> In summary, there’s no need to check &_M_before_begin == 
> _M_buckets[__bkt] and assign _M_before_begin._M_nxt in 
> _M_remove_bucket_begin.
>
>
> Then let’s see the responsibility of each method:
>
> The hash table in the C++ STL is composed of hash buckets and a node 
> list. The update of the node list is responsible for _M_erase and 
> _M_extract_node method. _M_remove_bucket_begin method only needs to 
> update the hash buckets. The update of _M_before_begin belongs to the 
> update of the node list. So _M_remove_bucket_begin doesn’t need to 
> update _M_before_begin.
>
>
> Existing tests listed below cover this change:
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/copy.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/copy_assign.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/move.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/move_assign.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/swap.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/erase/1.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/erase/24061-set.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/modifiers/extract.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/operations/count.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_set/requirements/exception/basic.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/copy.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/copy_assign.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/move.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/move_assign.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/swap.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/erase/1.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/erase/24061-map.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/modifiers/extract.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/modifiers/move_assign.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/operations/count.cc
>
> 23_containers/unordered_map/requirements/exception/basic.cc
>
>
> Regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Is it OK to commit?
>
>
> ---
>
> ChangeLog:
>
>
> libstdc++: hashtable: No need to update before begin node in 
> _M_remove_bucket_begin
>
>
> 2024-01-16Huanghui Nie<nnnjkk@gmail.com>
>
>
> gcc/
>
> * libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
>
>
> ---
>
>
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h 
> b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
>
> index b48610036fa..6056639e663 100644
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
>
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
>
> @@ -872,13 +872,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>
>       if (!__next_n || __next_bkt != __bkt)
>
>         {
>
>           // Bucket is now empty
>
> -         // First update next bucket if any
>
> +         // Update next bucket if any
>
>           if (__next_n)
>
>             _M_buckets[__next_bkt] = _M_buckets[__bkt];
>
> -         // Second update before begin node if necessary
>
> -         if (&_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt])
>
> -           _M_before_begin._M_nxt = __next_n;
>
>           _M_buckets[__bkt] = nullptr;
>
>         }
>
>     }
>
>