public inbox for libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Fix std::__niter_base behavior
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:38:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a6615ee-0a2c-4bcb-ad13-ba810edb9ee1@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACb0b4mK6=QC8hfG1vEy_xKp54+c4E_UsOWuOmUkZ617XgOeTw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4475 bytes --]


On 15/02/2024 14:17, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 21:48, François Dumont <frs.dumont@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>
>     On 14/02/2024 20:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 18:39, François Dumont
>>     <frs.dumont@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>         libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Fix std::__niter_base behavior
>>
>>         std::__niter_base is used in _GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode to remove
>>         _Safe_iterator<>
>>         wrapper on random access iterators. But doing so it should
>>         also preserve
>>         original
>>         behavior to remove __normal_iterator wrapper.
>>
>>         libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>
>>              * include/bits/stl_algobase.h (std::__niter_base):
>>         Redefine the
>>         overload
>>              definitions for __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator.
>>              * include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc (std::__niter_base):
>>         Adapt
>>         declarations.
>>
>>         Ok to commit once all tests completed (still need to check
>>         pre-c++11) ?
>>
>>
>>
>>     The declaration in  include/bits/stl_algobase.h has a
>>     noexcept-specifier but the definition in
>>     include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc does not have one - that seems
>>     wrong (I'm surprised it even compiles).
>
>     It does !
>
>
> The diagnostic is suppressed without -Wsystem-headers:
>
> /home/jwakely/gcc/14/include/c++/14.0.1/debug/safe_iterator.tcc:255:5:warning: 
> declaration of 'template<class _Ite, class _Seq> constexpr decltype 
> (std::__
> niter_base(declval<_Ite>())) std::__niter_base(const 
> __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Iterator, _Sequence, 
> random_access_iterator_tag>&)' has a different except
> ion specifier [-Wsystem-headers]
>  255 | __niter_base(const ::__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Ite, _Seq,
>      | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> /home/jwakely/gcc/14/include/c++/14.0.1/bits/stl_algobase.h:335:5:note: 
> from previous declaration 'template<class _Ite, class _Seq> constexpr 
> decltype (std
> ::__niter_base(declval<_Ite>())) std::__niter_base(const 
> __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Iterator, _Sequence, 
> random_access_iterator_tag>&) noexcept (noexcept
> (is_nothrow_copy_constructible<decltype 
> (std::__niter_base(declval<_Ite>()))>::value))'
>  335 | __niter_base(const ::__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Ite, _Seq,
>      | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> It's a hard error with Clang though:
>
> deb.cc:7:10: error: call to '__niter_base' is ambiguous
>
>
Yes, I eventually got the error too, I hadn't run enough tests yet.


>
>
>     I thought it was only necessary at declaration, and I also had
>     troubles doing it right at definition because of the interaction
>     with the auto and ->.
>
>
> The trailing-return-type has to come after the noexcept-specifier.
>
>     Now simplified and consistent in this new proposal.
>
>
>>     Just using std::is_nothrow_copy_constructible<_Ite> seems
>>     simpler, that will be true for __normal_iterator<I, C> if
>>     is_nothrow_copy_constructible<I> is true.
>>
>     Ok
>
>
>>     The definition in include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc should use
>>     std::declval<_Ite>() not declval<_Ite>(). Is there any reason why
>>     the definition uses a late-specified-return-type (i.e. auto and
>>     ->) when the declaration doesn't?
>>
>>
>     I initially plan to use '->
>     std::decltype(std::__niter_base(__it.base()))' but this did not
>     compile, ambiguity issue. So I resort to using std::declval and I
>     could have then done it the same way as declaration, done now.
>
>     Attached is what I'm testing, ok to commit once fully tested ?
>
>
> OK, thanks.
>
Thanks for validation but I have a problem to test for c++98.

When I do:

make CXXFLAGS=-std=c++98 check-debug

I see in debug/libstdc++.log for example:

Executing on host: /home/fdumont/dev/gcc/build/./gcc/xg++ -shared-libgcc 
... -mshstk -std=c++98 -g -O2 -DLOCALEDIR="." -nostdinc++ 
-I/home/fdumont/dev/gcc/... 
/home/fdumont/dev/gcc/git/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/25_algorithms/copy/3.cc 
-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG   -std=gnu++17  -include bits/stdc++.h ...  -lm -o 
./3.exe    (timeout = 360)

The -std=c++98 is there but later comes the -std=gnu++17 so I think it 
runs in C++17, no ?

I also tried the documented alternative:

make check 'RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=unix/-O3\"{-std=gnu++98,-std=gnu++11,-std=gnu++14}\"'

but same problem, -std=gnu++17 comes last.

I'll try to rebuild all from scratch but I won't commit soon then.


  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-15 18:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-14 18:39 François Dumont
2024-02-14 19:44 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-02-14 21:48   ` François Dumont
2024-02-15 13:17     ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-02-15 18:38       ` François Dumont [this message]
2024-02-15 18:40         ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-02-17 14:14           ` François Dumont
2024-02-19  7:07             ` Stephan Bergmann
2024-02-19  8:12               ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-02-19  8:21                 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-02-19 18:39                   ` François Dumont
2024-02-20 18:42                   ` François Dumont
2024-02-20 19:27                     ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-02-19 17:59               ` François Dumont

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=9a6615ee-0a2c-4bcb-ad13-ba810edb9ee1@gmail.com \
    --to=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --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).