public inbox for libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>,
	libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I,C>>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 07:53:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5a951a74-5afd-a2da-02fd-9f9e7b33b448@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed2f772a-8439-a7a1-40eb-0cea26f4fee2@gmail.com>

Hi

     Any conclusion regarding this thread ?

François


On 06/10/21 7:25 pm, François Dumont wrote:
> I forgot to ask if with this patch this overload:
>
>   template<typename _Ptr, typename... _None>
>     constexpr auto
>     __to_address(const _Ptr& __ptr, _None...) noexcept
>     {
>       if constexpr (is_base_of_v<__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator_base, _Ptr>)
>     return std::__to_address(__ptr.base().operator->());
>       else
>     return std::__to_address(__ptr.operator->());
>     }
>
> should be removed ?
>
> Or perhaps just the _Safe_iterator_base branch in it ?
>
> On 06/10/21 7:18 pm, François Dumont wrote:
>> Here is another proposal with the __to_address overload.
>>
>> I preferred to let it open to any kind of __normal_iterator 
>> instantiation cause afaics std::vector supports fancy pointer types. 
>> It is better if __to_address works fine also in this case, no ?
>>
>>     libstdc++: Overload std::__to_address for 
>> __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator.
>>
>>     Prefer to overload __to_address to partially specialize 
>> std::pointer_traits because
>>     std::pointer_traits would be mostly useless. In the case of 
>> __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator
>>     the to_pointer method is even impossible to implement correctly 
>> because we are missing
>>     the parent container to associate the iterator to.
>>
>>     libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>
>>             * include/bits/stl_iterator.h
>> (std::pointer_traits<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<>>): Remove.
>>             (std::__to_address(const 
>> __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<>&)): New.
>>             * include/debug/safe_iterator.h
>>             (std::__to_address(const 
>> __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<>, 
>> _Sequence>&)):
>>             New.
>>             * testsuite/24_iterators/normal_iterator/to_address.cc: 
>> Add check on std::vector::iterator
>>             to validate both __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<> 
>> __to_address overload in normal mode and the
>>
>> Tested under Linux x86_64.
>>
>> Ok to commit ?
>>
>> François
>>
>>
>> On 04/10/21 10:30 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 21:28, François Dumont via Libstdc++
>>> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>  wrote:
>>>> On 04/10/21 10:05 pm, François Dumont wrote:
>>>>> On 02/10/21 10:24 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 at 18:27, François Dumont wrote:
>>>>>>> I would like to propose this alternative approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this patch I make __normal_iterator and random iterator
>>>>>>> _Safe_iterator compatible for pointer_traits primary template.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding pointer_traits I wonder if it shouldn't check for the
>>>>>>> to_pointer method availability and use per default: return {
>>>>>>> std::addressof(__e) }; otherwise. This way we wouldn't have to
>>>>>>> provide a
>>>>>>> pointer_to method on __normal_iterator.
>>>>>> But I would rather not have these members present in 
>>>>>> vector::iterator
>>>>>> and string::iterator, in case users accidentally start to rely on 
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> being present.
>>>>> Making pointer_traits friends would help but I do not like it 
>>>>> neither.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another option would be to overload std::__to_address so it knows 
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> to get the address from __normal_iterator and _Safe_iterator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>> I start thinking that rather than proposing not-useful and even
>>>>> incorrect code in the case of the _Safe_iterator<> it might be a
>>>>> better approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the rebind for __normal_iterator is a little strange because 
>>>>> when
>>>>> doing rebind on std::vector<int>::iterator for long it produces
>>>>> __normal_iterator<long*, std::vector<int>>, quite inconsistent 
>>>>> even if
>>>>> useless.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>


  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-14  6:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-28 19:25 Jonathan Wakely
2021-09-30 20:24 ` François Dumont
2021-10-01 22:29   ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I, C>> Jonathan Wakely
2021-10-02 13:08     ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I,C>> François Dumont
2021-10-02 20:28       ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I, C>> Jonathan Wakely
2021-10-02 17:27     ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I,C>> François Dumont
2021-10-02 20:24       ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I, C>> Jonathan Wakely
2021-10-04 20:05         ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I,C>> François Dumont
2021-10-04 20:26           ` François Dumont
2021-10-04 20:30             ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I, C>> Jonathan Wakely
2021-10-06 17:18               ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I,C>> François Dumont
2021-10-06 17:25                 ` François Dumont
2021-12-14  6:53                   ` François Dumont [this message]
2021-12-14 13:12                     ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I, C>> Jonathan Wakely
2021-12-15 21:16                       ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I,C>> François Dumont
2021-12-15 21:21                         ` [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I, C>> 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=5a951a74-5afd-a2da-02fd-9f9e7b33b448@gmail.com \
    --to=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
    --cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
    --cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
    /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).