From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
Cc: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>,
"Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>,
libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: bvector: undef always_inline macro
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 08:22:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACb0b4nNoWSLED++yFHW_bj26c4CgAs8bP7k_xJRSeyAQ8ARnw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <orbkbv4twy.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 02:44, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2023, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 19:49, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 9, 2023, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But I've just realised we probably want to #undef the macro at the end
> >> > of bits/stl_bvector.h too.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why (what if another libstdc++ header were to define the
> >> macro, includes stl_bvector.h, and then use the macro expecting it to
> >> still be there?), but I suppose this is what you mean.
>
> > It's consistent with all the other definitions of the macro in our
> > headers. We always define it locally and then undef it again at the
> > end of the header. You're right that that makes it rather hard to use
> > reliably.
>
> Not only that. It also seems to cause failures, but I messed up in my
> testing and didn't catch them.
>
> We've seen gcc-13 regressions in g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header* and
> 27_io/basic_syncbuf/sync_ops/1.cc. I suspect they're going to show up
> in trunk as well starting today, since I've just installed this bit
> (unfortunately, shortly before I learned about the regressions)
>
> I'm about to rerun trunk testing and, if I confirm the regressions, I'll
> revert this followup patch.
Yes, please revert. I misremembered.
I thought I even checked my assumption, but I don't see it in my shell
history now.
Sorry for the mixup.
>
> The symptom in gcc-13 is that bits/semaphore_base.h fails to compile
> because _GLIBCXX_ALWAYS_INLINE is no longer available. AFAICT it relied
> on the define from bits/atomic_base.h included by <atomic>, but <chrono>
> includes <vector> that, in stl_bvector.h, undefines the macro, and then
> when bits/semaphore_base.h includes bits/atomic_base.h again, the macro
> doesn't get defined again. We should probably define and undefine it
> explicitly in semaphore_base.h as well, and everywhere else that uses
> it, if the current policy is to be maintained.
>
> Backporters beware ;-)
>
> >> * include/bits/stl_bvector.h (_GLIBCXX_ALWAYS_INLINE): Undef.
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
> Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
> More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity
> Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-15 8:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-08 16:10 [PATCH] libstdc++: optimize bit iterators assuming normalization [PR110807] Alexandre Oliva
2023-11-08 19:32 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-11-09 1:17 ` [PATCH v2] " Alexandre Oliva
2023-11-09 1:22 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-11-09 3:36 ` [PATCH v3] " Alexandre Oliva
2023-11-09 5:57 ` François Dumont
2023-11-09 8:16 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-11-09 19:49 ` [PATCH] libstdc++: bvector: undef always_inline macro Alexandre Oliva
2023-11-09 20:18 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-11-15 2:20 ` Patrick Palka
2023-11-15 5:53 ` Alexandre Oliva
2023-11-15 2:44 ` Alexandre Oliva
2023-11-15 5:08 ` Alexandre Oliva
2023-11-15 8:22 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2023-11-16 4:40 ` Alexandre Oliva
2024-02-07 16:25 ` [PATCH v2] libstdc++: optimize bit iterators assuming normalization [PR110807] Torbjorn SVENSSON
2024-02-07 16:36 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-02-09 8:49 ` Torbjorn SVENSSON
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=CACb0b4nNoWSLED++yFHW_bj26c4CgAs8bP7k_xJRSeyAQ8ARnw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=oliva@adacore.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).