From: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>,
Maciej Miera <maciej.miera@gmail.com>
Cc: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: _LIBCXX_DEBUG value initialized singular iterators assert failures in std algorithms [PR104316]
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:16:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f29d2f2-a21b-42bb-997f-3918935d0dba@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19f5939a-9341-4237-90d9-4f1279f03a88@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4963 bytes --]
With the patch, sorry.
On 14/03/2024 22:49, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is what I started to do.
>
> For now I haven't touch to __cpp_lib_null_iterators definition as
> _Safe_local_iterator still need some work.
>
> libstdc++: Implement N3644 on _Safe_iterator<> [PR114316]
>
> Consider range of value-initialized iterators as valid and empty.
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> PR libstdc++/114316
> * include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc
> (_Safe_iterator<>::_M_valid_range):
> First check if both iterators are value-initialized before
> checking if
> singular.
> * testsuite/23_containers/set/debug/114316.cc: New test case.
> * testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/114316.cc: New test case.
>
> Tested under Linux x86_64, ok to commit ?
>
> François
>
>
> On 12/03/2024 10:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 01:03, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 00:55, Maciej Miera <maciej.miera@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wiadomość napisana przez Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> w
>>>> dniu 11.03.2024, o godz. 21:40:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 20:07, Maciej Miera <maciej.miera@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have tried to introduce an extra level of safety to my codebase
>>>> and utilize _GLIBCXX_DEBUG in my test builds in order to catch
>>>> faulty iterators.
>>>> However, I have encountered the following problem: I would like to
>>>> utilize singular, value-initialized iterators as an arbitrary "null
>>>> range”.
>>>> However, this leads to failed assertions in std:: algorithms taking
>>>> such range.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following code sample with find_if:
>>>>
>>>> #include <map>
>>>> #include <algorithm>
>>>> #include <iterator>
>>>>
>>>> #ifndef __cpp_lib_null_iterators
>>>> #warning "Not standard compliant"
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> std::multimap<char, int>::iterator it1{};
>>>> std::multimap<char, int>::iterator it2{};
>>>>
>>>> (void) (it1==it2); // OK
>>>> (void) std::find_if(
>>>> it1, it2, [](const auto& el) { return el.second == 8;});
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Compiled with -std=c++20 and -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG it produces the
>>>> warning "Not standard compliant"
>>>> and the execution results in the following assert failure:
>>>>
>>>> /opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-12.2.0/include/c++/12.2.0/bits/stl_algo.h:3875:
>>>>
>>>> In function:
>>>> constexpr _IIter std::find_if(_IIter, _IIter, _Predicate) [with
>>>> _IIter =
>>>> gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Rb_tree_iterator<pair<const char, int> >,
>>>> debug::multimap<char, int>, bidirectional_iterator_tag>;
>>>> _Predicate =
>>>> main()::<lambda(const auto:16&)>]
>>>>
>>>> The question is though: is it by design, or is it just a mere
>>>> oversight? The warning actually suggest the first option.
>>>> If it is an intentional design choice, could you provide some
>>>> rationale behind it, please?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The macro was not defined because the C++14 rule wasn't implemented
>>>> for debug mode, but that should have been fixed for GCC 11, according
>>>> to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466 and
>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
>>>> So we should be able to define macro now, except maybe it wasn't fixed
>>>> for the RB tree containers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: comparison via ==
>>>> works fine. The feature check macro without _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and with
>>>> <iterator> included is also fine. Maybe the need to include a
>>>> header is the issue, but that’s not the core of the problem anyway.
>>> No, it has nothing to do with the headers included. The feature test
>>> macro is defined like so:
>>>
>>> # if (__cplusplus >= 201402L) && (!defined(_GLIBCXX_DEBUG))
>>> # define __glibcxx_null_iterators 201304L
>>>
>>> It's a very deliberate choice to not define it when _GLIBCXX_DEBUG is
>>> defined. But as I said, I think we should have changed that.
>>>
>>>> The actual question is though, whether passing singular iterators
>>>> to std algorithms (like find_if) should make the asserts at the
>>>> beginning of the algo function fail when compiled with
>>>> _GLIBCXX_DEBUG. IMHO, intuitively it should not, as comparing
>>>> iterators equal would just ensure early exit and return of the same
>>>> singular iterator.
>>>> This seems not to be the case though. The actual message is this:
>>>> Error: the function requires a valid iterator range [first, last).
>>>> What bothers me is whether the empty virtual range limited by two
>>>> same singular iterators is actually valid or not.
>>> Yes, it's valid. So the bug is in the __glibcxx_requires_valid_range
>>> macro.
>> Thanks for the bugzilla report:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114316
>> We'll get it fixed!
>>
[-- Attachment #2: pr104316.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2121 bytes --]
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc b/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc
index a8b24233e85..4b2baf2980e 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc
@@ -194,6 +194,12 @@ namespace __gnu_debug
std::pair<difference_type, _Distance_precision>& __dist,
bool __check_dereferenceable) const
{
+ if (_M_value_initialized() && __rhs._M_value_initialized())
+ {
+ __dist = std::make_pair(0, __dp_exact);
+ return true;
+ }
+
if (_M_singular() || __rhs._M_singular() || !_M_can_compare(__rhs))
return false;
@@ -218,6 +224,12 @@ namespace __gnu_debug
std::pair<difference_type,
_Distance_precision>& __dist) const
{
+ if (this->_M_value_initialized() && __rhs._M_value_initialized())
+ {
+ __dist = std::make_pair(0, __dp_exact);
+ return true;
+ }
+
if (this->_M_singular() || __rhs._M_singular()
|| !this->_M_can_compare(__rhs))
return false;
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/set/debug/114316.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/set/debug/114316.cc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..126ec89b5e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/set/debug/114316.cc
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+// { dg-require-debug-mode "" }
+
+// PR libstdc++/114316
+
+#include <set>
+#include <algorithm>
+
+#include <testsuite_hooks.h>
+
+int main()
+{
+ std::set<int>::iterator it{};
+ VERIFY( std::find(it, it, 0) == it );
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/114316.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/114316.cc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f211cf67b4c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/114316.cc
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+// { dg-require-debug-mode "" }
+
+// PR libstdc++/114316
+
+#include <vector>
+#include <algorithm>
+
+#include <testsuite_hooks.h>
+
+int main()
+{
+ std::vector<int>::iterator it{};
+ VERIFY( std::find(it, it, 0) == it );
+ return 0;
+}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-16 12:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-11 20:07 _LIBCXX_DEBUG value initialized singular iterators assert failures in std algorithms Maciej Miera
2024-03-11 20:40 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-12 0:54 ` Maciej Miera
2024-03-12 1:03 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-12 9:52 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-14 21:49 ` _LIBCXX_DEBUG value initialized singular iterators assert failures in std algorithms [PR104316] François Dumont
2024-03-16 12:16 ` François Dumont [this message]
2024-03-17 11:45 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-17 16:52 ` François Dumont
2024-03-17 18:14 ` François Dumont
2024-03-18 7:45 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-18 21:38 ` François Dumont
2024-03-19 9:31 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-19 15:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-20 5:59 ` François Dumont
2024-03-20 9:02 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-20 18:10 ` François Dumont
2024-03-21 6:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-03-18 7:45 ` 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=2f29d2f2-a21b-42bb-997f-3918935d0dba@gmail.com \
--to=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=maciej.miera@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).