From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] porting_to: Two-stage overload resolution for implicit move removed
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 18:44:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y0dDTxQgmketXC/h@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACb0b4=i1vsw+urVBmYPpCv_E7Tu1y4o6niz37=Sse1tX+eXQw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:38:01PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 23:24, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 09:50:36PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 20:39, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I promised in
> > > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603189.html>,
> > > > I'd like to update our GCC 13 porting_to.html with the following note.
> > > >
> > > > Does this look OK to commit? Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
> > > > index 84a00f21..243ed29d 100644
> > > > --- a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
> > > > +++ b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
> > > > @@ -42,5 +42,57 @@ be included explicitly when compiled with GCC 13:
> > > > </li>
> > > > </ul>
> > > >
> > > > +<h3 id="two-stage-or">Two-stage overload resolution for implicit move removed</h3>
> > > > +<p>
> > > > +GCC 13 removed the two-stage overload resolution when performing
> > > > +implicit move, whereby the compiler does two separate overload resolutions:
> > > > +one treating the operand as an rvalue, and then (if that resolution fails)
> > > > +another one treating the operand as an lvalue. In the standard this was
> > > > +introduced in C++11 and implemented in gcc in
> > > > +<a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=4ce8c5dea53d80736b9c0ba6faa7430ed65ed365">
> > > > +r251035</a>. In
> > > > +<a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=1722e2013f05f1f1f99379dbaa0c0df356da731f">
> > > > +r11-2412</a>, the fallback overload resolution was disabled in C++20 (but
> > > > +not in C++17). Then C++23 <a href="https://wg21.link/p2266">P2266</a>
> > > > +removed the fallback overload resolution, and changed the implicit move
> > > > +rules once again.
> > > > +</p>
> > > > +<p>
> > > > +The two overload resolutions approach was complicated and quirky, so users
> > > > +should transition to the newer model. This change means that code that
> > > > +previously didn't compile in C++17 will now compile, for example:</p>
> > > > +
> > > > +<pre><code>
> > > > + struct S1 { S1(S1 &&); };
> > > > + struct S2 : S1 {};
> > > > +
> > > > + S1
> > > > + f (S2 s)
> > > > + {
> > > > + return s; // OK, derived-to-base, use S1::S1(S1&&)
> > > > + }
> > > > +</code></pre>
> > > > +
> > > > +<p>
> > > > +And conversely, code that used to work in C++17 may not compile anymore:
> > > > +</p>
> > > > +
> > > > +<pre><code>
> > > > + struct W {
> > > > + W();
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + struct F {
> > > > + F(W&);
> > > > + F(W&&) = delete;
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + F fn ()
> > > > + {
> > > > + W w;
> > > > + return w; // use w as rvalue -> use of deleted function F::F(W&&)
> > >
> > > Deleted move constructors are an abomination, and should never occur
> > > in real code. I'm not sure using one even in an example like this
> > > should be encouraged. The example added by P2266 to Annex D is more
> > > realistic (and actually broke a libstdc++ test):
> > >
> > > X& foo(X&& x) { return x; }
> >
> > Right, but this code still compiles in C++17, it only fails to compile
> > in C++23. The previous example now doesn't compile even in C++17. So
> > how about this improved patch which makes it clear that code with
> > deleted move constructors should never occur in practice, and adds a new
> > note, specifically about P2266 and the code you showed?
>
> Doh, I've just realised that F(W&&) isn't a move ctor at all. For some
> reason I read the example as F(F&&).
And so did I while adding the note :[.
> I think your original example is fine, and the note would just be
> confusing (because it's not a deleted move ctor!)
I think I'll go ahead with this, then (I've removed the NB). Thanks!
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
index 84a00f21..ccd3f08f 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
@@ -42,5 +42,69 @@ be included explicitly when compiled with GCC 13:
</li>
</ul>
+<h3 id="P2266">Implicit move rules change</h3>
+<p>
+GCC 13 implements C++23 <a href="https://wg21.link/p2266">P2266</a> which
+simplified the rules for implicit move. As a consequence, valid C++20
+code that relies on a returned <em>id-expression</em>'s being an lvalue
+may change behavior or fail to compile in C++23. For example:</p>
+
+<pre><code>
+ decltype(auto) f(int&& x) { return (x); } // returns int&&; previously returned int&
+ int& g(int&& x) { return x; } // ill-formed; previously well-formed
+</code></pre>
+
+<h3 id="two-stage-or">Two-stage overload resolution for implicit move removed</h3>
+<p>GCC 13 removed the two-stage overload resolution when performing
+implicit move, whereby the compiler does two separate overload resolutions:
+one treating the operand as an rvalue, and then (if that resolution fails)
+another one treating the operand as an lvalue. In the standard this was
+introduced in C++11 and implemented in gcc in
+<a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=4ce8c5dea53d80736b9c0ba6faa7430ed65ed365">
+r251035</a>. In
+<a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=1722e2013f05f1f1f99379dbaa0c0df356da731f">
+r11-2412</a>, the fallback overload resolution was disabled in C++20 (but
+not in C++17). Then C++23 <a href="https://wg21.link/p2266">P2266</a>
+removed the fallback overload resolution, and changed the implicit move
+rules once again.</p>
+
+<p>The two overload resolutions approach was complicated and quirky, so users
+should transition to the newer model. This change means that code that
+previously didn't compile in C++17 will now compile, for example:</p>
+
+<pre><code>
+ struct S1 { S1(S1 &&); };
+ struct S2 : S1 {};
+
+ S1
+ f (S2 s)
+ {
+ return s; // OK, derived-to-base, use S1::S1(S1&&)
+ }
+</code></pre>
+
+<p>Conversely, code that used to work in C++17 may not compile anymore.
+For example, the following example used to compile in C++11...17 because
+we performed two separate overload resolutions: one treating the operand
+as an rvalue, and then (if that resolution failed) another one treating
+the operand as an lvalue.<br>
+
+<pre><code>
+ struct W {
+ W();
+ };
+
+ struct F {
+ F(W&);
+ F(W&&) = delete;
+ };
+
+ F fn ()
+ {
+ W w;
+ return w; // use w as rvalue -> use of deleted function F::F(W&&)
+ }
+</code></pre>
+
</body>
</html>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-12 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-12 19:38 Marek Polacek
2022-10-12 20:50 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:24 ` Marek Polacek
2022-10-12 22:38 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:44 ` Marek Polacek [this message]
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=Y0dDTxQgmketXC/h@redhat.com \
--to=polacek@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.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).