From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>,
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: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:07:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc271-tNqwgB56+8gmZSn01LCqURTVhY8p-cFtKK1e_=xw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc55f56c-7e3a-67f8-5d3c-f00c8b67b98a@gmail.com>
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<>&?
Richard.
>
> Martin
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-28 8:07 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 [this message]
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 ` [PATCH] " Jason Merrill
2021-06-29 17:18 ` 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='CAFiYyc271-tNqwgB56+8gmZSn01LCqURTVhY8p-cFtKK1e_=xw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=msebor@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).