public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Daniel Krügler" <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Design question LWG 2861: basic_string should require that charT match traits::char_type
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:33:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGNvRgC08jD8Qa+5RJ1FMrYeuQM4AfjHBqexXTMmduRyedwxTg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdRCuM17tr-fvBB0JF0G4GqO8jYtp25B92fy3ce_DA+g7A@mail.gmail.com>

2017-03-13 11:56 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>:
> On 12 March 2017 at 13:21, Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm now working on
>>
>> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2861
>>
>> The new wording state is now equivalent to basic_string_view, whose
>> current implementation doesn't bother verifying the requirement, so
>> this code (which as UB) currently compiles just fine:
>>
>> #include <string>
>> #include <string_view>
>>
>> struct MyTraits : std::char_traits<char>
>> {
>>   typedef unsigned char char_type;
>> };
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>   std::basic_string<char, MyTraits> my_string;
>>   std::basic_string_view<char, MyTraits> my_string_view;
>> }
>>
>> So the least I could do is just - nothing. But it seems to me that we
>> could protect users from doing such silly things by adding a
>> static_assert to both basic_string and basic_string_view, the former
>> being equivalent to
>>
>> #if __cplusplus >= 201103L
>>       static_assert(__are_same<value_type, _CharT>::value,
>>                     "traits_type::char_type must be equal to _CharT");
>> #endif
>>
>> and the latter an unconditional
>>
>>       static_assert(is_same<typename _Traits::char_type, _CharT>::value,
>>                     "traits_type::char_type must be equal to _CharT");
>>
>> Would you agree with that course of action?
>
> Not at this stage of gcc7 development. If the silly code compile fine
> then we risk breaking working code, and we're too close to a release
> to do that.

Is there a way to mark a patch suggestion for gcc8 and is so, how?

> We can reconsider for gcc8 (but even then, the code has undefined
> behaviour, so it would be a QoI choice whether to reject it or just
> accept it, as we do for containers where Alloc::value_type doesn't
> match the container's value_type).

Yes, sure, purely QoI, but the fix seems to be a no-brainer.

- Daniel

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-13 11:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-12 13:21 Daniel Krügler
2017-03-13 10:56 ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-03-13 11:33   ` Daniel Krügler [this message]
2017-03-13 17:31     ` Jonathan Wakely

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=CAGNvRgC08jD8Qa+5RJ1FMrYeuQM4AfjHBqexXTMmduRyedwxTg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=daniel.kruegler@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jwakely.gcc@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).