[PATCH] libstdc++/98466 Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG N3644 integration

[François Dumont]

On 14/01/21 6:10 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 01/01/21 18:51 +0100, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
>> I think the PR is not limited to unordered containers iterator, it 
>> impacts all _GLIBCXX_DEBUG iterators.
>>
>> However unordered containers local_iterator was more complicated to 
>> handle. Because of c++/65816 I prefer to review 
>> _Node_iterator_default constructor to set _M_cur to nullptr even if 
>> in principle it is not necessary except for the _Local_iterator_base 
>> constructor when hash code is not cached.
>>
>> Â Â Â  libstdc++: Implement N3644 for _GLIBCXX_DEBUG iterators
>>
>> Â Â Â  libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
>>
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  PR libstdc++/98466
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * include/bits/hashtable_policy.h 
>> (_Node_iterator_base()): Set _M_cur to nullptr.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (_Node_iterator()): Make default.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (_Node_const_iterator()): Make default.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * include/debug/macros.h 
>> (__glibcxx_check_erae_range_after): Add _M_singular
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  iterator checks.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * include/debug/safe_iterator.h
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_VERIFY_OPERANDS): Accept if 
>> both iterator are value initialized.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * include/debug/safe_local_iterator.h 
>> (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_VERIFY_OPERANDS):
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  Likewise.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc 
>> (_Safe_iterator<>::_M_valid_range): Add
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  _M_singular checks on input iterators.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * src/c++11/debug.cc 
>> (_Safe_iterator_base::_M_can_compare): Remove _M_singular
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  checks.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * 
>> testsuite/23_containers/deque/debug/98466.cc: New test.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * 
>> testsuite/23_containers/unordered_map/debug/98466.cc: New test.
>>
>> Tested under Linux x86_64 normal and debug mode.
>>
>> Ok to commit ?
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
> One question about the deque test ...
>
>
>> diff --git 
>> a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/debug/98466.cc 
>> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/debug/98466.cc
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..720977e5622
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/debug/98466.cc
>> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
>> +// Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> +//
>> +// This file is part of the GNU ISO C++ Library.  This library is free
>> +// software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
>> +// terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
>> +// Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
>> +// any later version.
>> +
>> +// This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> +// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> +// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> +// GNU General Public License for more details.
>> +
>> +// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License 
>> along
>> +// with this library; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
>> +// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> +
>> +// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
>
> Does this need to be limited to c++11 and later? Could it just use
> { dg-do run } instead?

Good point, a bad copy/paste from the unordered test I guess.

But I try to remove it and it complained about invalid '{}' syntax in 
C++98 for the iterator value initialization. I try to replace with '()' 
but then ambiguity with a function declaration, I gave up !

As N3644 is talking about value initialization it doesn't sound that bad 
to limit it to C++11, isn't it a C++11 concept ?


> OK to commit anyway, thanks.
>
>
>