Doc. no. N2728=08-0238
Date: 2008-08-24
Project: Programming Language C++
Reply to: Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant@gmail.com>

C++ Standard Library Defect Report List (Revision R59)

Reference ISO/IEC IS 14882:1998(E)

Also see:

This document contains only library issues which have been closed by the Library Working Group (LWG) after being found to be defects in the standard. That is, issues which have a status of DR, TC, or RR. See the Library Closed Issues List for issues closed as non-defects. See the Library Active Issues List for active issues and more information. The introductory material in that document also applies to this document.

Revision History

Defect Reports

1. C library linkage editing oversight

Section: 17.4.2.2 [using.linkage] Status: TC Submitter: Beman Dawes Date: 1997-11-16

View all issues with TC status.

Discussion:

The change specified in the proposed resolution below did not make it into the Standard. This change was accepted in principle at the London meeting, and the exact wording below was accepted at the Morristown meeting.

Proposed resolution:

Change 17.4.2.2 [using.linkage] paragraph 2 from:

It is unspecified whether a name from the Standard C library declared with external linkage has either extern "C" or extern "C++" linkage.

to:

Whether a name from the Standard C library declared with external linkage has extern "C" or extern "C++" linkage is implementation defined. It is recommended that an implementation use extern "C++" linkage for this purpose.

3. Atexit registration during atexit() call is not described

Section: 18.4 [support.start.term] Status: TC Submitter: Steve Clamage Date: 1997-12-12

View all issues with TC status.

Discussion:

We appear not to have covered all the possibilities of exit processing with respect to atexit registration.

Example 1: (C and C++)

    #include <stdlib.h>
    void f1() { }
    void f2() { atexit(f1); }
    
    int main()
    {
        atexit(f2); // the only use of f2
        return 0; // for C compatibility
    }

At program exit, f2 gets called due to its registration in main. Running f2 causes f1 to be newly registered during the exit processing. Is this a valid program? If so, what are its semantics?

Interestingly, neither the C standard, nor the C++ draft standard nor the forthcoming C9X Committee Draft says directly whether you can register a function with atexit during exit processing.

All 3 standards say that functions are run in reverse order of their registration. Since f1 is registered last, it ought to be run first, but by the time it is registered, it is too late to be first.

If the program is valid, the standards are self-contradictory about its semantics.

Example 2: (C++ only)

    
    void F() { static T t; } // type T has a destructor

    int main()
    {
        atexit(F); // the only use of F
    }

Function F registered with atexit has a local static variable t, and F is called for the first time during exit processing. A local static object is initialized the first time control flow passes through its definition, and all static objects are destroyed during exit processing. Is the code valid? If so, what are its semantics?

Section 18.3 "Start and termination" says that if a function F is registered with atexit before a static object t is initialized, F will not be called until after t's destructor completes.

In example 2, function F is registered with atexit before its local static object O could possibly be initialized. On that basis, it must not be called by exit processing until after O's destructor completes. But the destructor cannot be run until after F is called, since otherwise the object could not be constructed in the first place.

If the program is valid, the standard is self-contradictory about its semantics.

I plan to submit Example 1 as a public comment on the C9X CD, with a recommendation that the results be undefined. (Alternative: make it unspecified. I don't think it is worthwhile to specify the case where f1 itself registers additional functions, each of which registers still more functions.)

I think we should resolve the situation in the whatever way the C committee decides.

For Example 2, I recommend we declare the results undefined.

[See reflector message lib-6500 for further discussion.]

Proposed resolution:

Change section 18.3/8 from:

First, objects with static storage duration are destroyed and functions registered by calling atexit are called. Objects with static storage duration are destroyed in the reverse order of the completion of their constructor. (Automatic objects are not destroyed as a result of calling exit().) Functions registered with atexit are called in the reverse order of their registration. A function registered with atexit before an object obj1 of static storage duration is initialized will not be called until obj1's destruction has completed. A function registered with atexit after an object obj2 of static storage duration is initialized will be called before obj2's destruction starts.

to:

First, objects with static storage duration are destroyed and functions registered by calling atexit are called. Non-local objects with static storage duration are destroyed in the reverse order of the completion of their constructor. (Automatic objects are not destroyed as a result of calling exit().) Functions registered with atexit are called in the reverse order of their registration, except that a function is called after any previously registered functions that had already been called at the time it was registered. A function registered with atexit before a non-local object obj1 of static storage duration is initialized will not be called until obj1's destruction has completed. A function registered with atexit after a non-local object obj2 of static storage duration is initialized will be called before obj2's destruction starts. A local static object obj3 is destroyed at the same time it would be if a function calling the obj3 destructor were registered with atexit at the completion of the obj3 constructor.

Rationale:

See 99-0039/N1215, October 22, 1999, by Stephen D. Clamage for the analysis supporting to the proposed resolution.

5. String::compare specification questionable

Section: 21.3.6.8 [string::swap] Status: TC Submitter: Jack Reeves Date: 1997-12-11

View all other issues in [string::swap].

View all issues with TC status.

Duplicate of: 87

Discussion:

At the very end of the basic_string class definition is the signature: int compare(size_type pos1, size_type n1, const charT* s, size_type n2 = npos) const; In the following text this is defined as: returns basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>(*this,pos1,n1).compare( basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>(s,n2);

Since the constructor basic_string(const charT* s, size_type n, const Allocator& a = Allocator()) clearly requires that s != NULL and n < npos and further states that it throws length_error if n == npos, it appears the compare() signature above should always throw length error if invoked like so: str.compare(1, str.size()-1, s); where 's' is some null terminated character array.

This appears to be a typo since the obvious intent is to allow either the call above or something like: str.compare(1, str.size()-1, s, strlen(s)-1);

This would imply that what was really intended was two signatures int compare(size_type pos1, size_type n1, const charT* s) const int compare(size_type pos1, size_type n1, const charT* s, size_type n2) const; each defined in terms of the corresponding constructor.

Proposed resolution:

Replace the compare signature in 21.3 [basic.string] (at the very end of the basic_string synopsis) which reads:

int compare(size_type pos1, size_type n1,
            const charT* s, size_type n2 = npos) const;

with:

int compare(size_type pos1, size_type n1,
            const charT* s) const;
int compare(size_type pos1, size_type n1,
            const charT* s, size_type n2) const;

Replace the portion of 21.3.6.8 [string::swap] paragraphs 5 and 6 which read:

int compare(size_type pos, size_type n1,
            charT * s, size_type n2 = npos) const;
Returns:
basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>(*this, pos, n1).compare(
             basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>( s, n2))

with:

int compare(size_type pos, size_type n1,
            const charT * s) const;
Returns:
basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>(*this, pos, n1).compare(
             basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>( s ))

int compare(size_type pos, size_type n1,
            const charT * s, size_type n2) const;
Returns:
basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>(*this, pos, n1).compare(
             basic_string<charT,traits,Allocator>( s, n2))

Editors please note that in addition to splitting the signature, the third argument becomes const, matching the existing synopsis.

Rationale:

While the LWG dislikes adding signatures, this is a clear defect in the Standard which must be fixed.  The same problem was also identified in issues 7 (item 5) and 87.

7. String clause minor problems

Section: 21 [strings] Status: TC Submitter: Matt Austern Date: 1997-12-15

View all other issues in [strings].

View all issues with TC status.

Discussion:

(1) In 21.3.6.4 [string::insert], the description of template <class InputIterator> insert(iterator, InputIterator, InputIterator) makes no sense. It refers to a member function that doesn't exist. It also talks about the return value of a void function.

(2) Several versions of basic_string::replace don't appear in the class synopsis.

(3) basic_string::push_back appears in the synopsis, but is never described elsewhere. In the synopsis its argument is const charT, which doesn't makes much sense; it should probably be charT, or possible const charT&.

(4) basic_string::pop_back is missing.

(5) int compare(size_type pos, size_type n1, charT* s, size_type n2 = npos) make no sense. First, it's const charT* in the synopsis and charT* in the description. Second, given what it says in RETURNS, leaving out the final argument will always result in an exception getting thrown. This is paragraphs 5 and 6 of 21.3.6.8 [string::swap]

(6) In table 37, in section 21.1.1 [char.traits.require], there's a note for X::move(s, p, n). It says "Copies correctly even where p is in [s, s+n)". This is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough; it should also guarantee that the copy is correct even where s in in [p, p+n). These are two orthogonal guarantees, and neither one follows from the other. Both guarantees are necessary if X::move is supposed to have the same sort of semantics as memmove (which was clearly the intent), and both guarantees are necessary if X::move is actually supposed to be useful.

Proposed resolution:

ITEM 1: In 21.3.5.4 [lib.string::insert], change paragraph 16 to

    EFFECTS: Equivalent to insert(p - begin(), basic_string(first, last)).

ITEM 2:  Not a defect; the Standard is clear.. There are ten versions of replace() in the synopsis, and ten versions in 21.3.5.6 [lib.string::replace].

ITEM 3: Change the declaration of push_back in the string synopsis (21.3, [lib.basic.string]) from:

     void push_back(const charT)

to

     void push_back(charT)

Add the following text immediately after 21.3.5.2 [lib.string::append], paragraph 10.

    void basic_string::push_back(charT c);
    EFFECTS: Equivalent to append(static_cast<size_type>(1), c);

ITEM 4: Not a defect. The omission appears to have been deliberate.

ITEM 5: Duplicate; see issue 5 (and 87).

ITEM 6: In table 37, Replace:

    "Copies correctly even where p is in [s, s+n)."

with:

     "Copies correctly even where the ranges [p, p+n) and [s, s+n) overlap."

8. Locale::global lacks guarantee

Section: 22.1.1.5 [locale.statics] Status: TC Submitter: Matt Austern Date: 1997-12-24

View all issues with TC status.

Discussion:

It appears there's an important guarantee missing from clause 22. We're told that invoking locale::global(L) sets the C locale if L has a name. However, we're not told whether or not invoking setlocale(s) sets the global C++ locale.

The intent, I think, is that it should not, but I can't find any such words anywhere.

Proposed resolution:

Add a sentence at the end of 22.1.1.5 [locale.statics], paragraph 2: 

No library function other than locale::global() shall affect the value returned by locale().

9. Operator new(0) calls should not yield the same pointer

Section: 18.5.1 [new.delete] Status: TC Submitter: Steve Cla