From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
Cc: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libstdc++: Fix deadlock in debug iterator increment [PR108288]
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:00:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACb0b4mD_X7OMv1drnHbNU9t9=jtw25s9N+GH_9g4_YCA7yvtw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <def5cd38-2af7-c6b3-f897-d99203bad875@gmail.com>
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 05:52, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Small update for an obvious compilation issue and to review new test
> case that could have lead to an infinite loop if the increment issue was
> not detected.
>
> I also forgot to ask if there is more chance for the instantiation to be
> elided when it is implemented like in the _Safe_local_iterator:
> return { __cur, this->_M_sequence };
No, that doesn't make any difference.
>
> than in the _Safe_iterator:
> return _Safe_iterator(__cur, this->_M_sequence);
>
> In the case where the user code do not use it ?
>
> Fully tested now, ok to commit ?
>
> François
>
> On 11/01/23 07:03, François Dumont wrote:
> > Thanks for fixing this.
> >
> > Here is the extension of the fix to all post-increment/decrement
> > operators we have on _GLIBCXX_DEBUG iterator.
Thanks, I completely forgot we have other partial specializations, I
just fixed the one that showed a deadlock in the user's example!
> > I prefer to restore somehow previous implementation to continue to
> > have _GLIBCXX_DEBUG post operators implemented in terms of normal post
> > operators.
Why?
Implementing post-increment as:
auto tmp = *this;
++*this;
return tmp;
is the idiomatic way to write it, and it works fine in this case. I
don't think it performs any more work than your version, does it?
Why not use the idiomatic form?
Is it just so that post-inc of a debug iterator uses post-inc of the
underlying iterator? Why does that matter?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-12 12:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-06 11:54 [committed] " Jonathan Wakely
2023-01-11 6:03 ` François Dumont
2023-01-12 5:52 ` François Dumont
2023-01-12 12:00 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2023-01-12 18:25 ` François Dumont
2023-01-12 21:35 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-01-15 16:08 ` 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='CACb0b4mD_X7OMv1drnHbNU9t9=jtw25s9N+GH_9g4_YCA7yvtw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--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).