From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@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: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 21:30:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdTFjVv=q10Qe4Y+LOnOmcOTqeCBFROjaOpXWKN4dH8xKQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34b34b00-8c96-68c1-e436-ab0f64291c2f@gmail.com>
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.
> >
> > But there's something that I'm missing, what is the relation between
> > __addressof and std::pointer_traits ? Is it that __builtin_addressof
> > is using it ?
> >
> Ignore this last question, I realized that we are talking about
> __to_address, not __addressof.
Yes, see the definition of std::__to_address in <bits/ptr_traits.h>
and also PR 96416.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-04 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-28 19:25 [committed] libstdc++: Specialize std::pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I,C>> 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 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2021-10-06 17:18 ` François Dumont
2021-10-06 17:25 ` François Dumont
2021-12-14 6:53 ` François Dumont
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='CAH6eHdTFjVv=q10Qe4Y+LOnOmcOTqeCBFROjaOpXWKN4dH8xKQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=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).