This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: N3644 Comparing value-initialized iterators

From: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:46:24 +0100
Subject: Re: N3644 Comparing value-initialized iterators
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <CAH6eHdSVdfKnz72KK0a_-7xipcJ=F9e0iC2P=odKJm3_PhG+1A at mail dot gmail dot com> <528FC1D4 dot 1090605 at gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQuD6LUf14CuncUfbW+DzqH1z+jGLKhX45SoTZkS8x9eQ at mail dot gmail dot com>

     I will spend some time on it if you don't mind.

I don't mind, but I'm not confident you'll be able to make
uninitialized memory give reliable results.


    I am not confident neither but for the moment I can only see 3 choices:
1. Remove debug checks regarding those comparisons
2. Do not change anything so ignoring N3644 resolution
3. Detect uninitialized memory even if not reliable

People interesting in debug checks will surely not appreciatechoice 1. People that worked to have N3644 adopted will surely notappreciate 2. 3 looks like the most acceptable approach to me.

To start with I will submit patches to remove uselessinitializations I have found on unordered containers iterators and onsafe iterators.


François

Follow-Ups:
- Re: N3644 Comparing value-initialized iterators
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

References:
- N3644 Comparing value-initialized iterators
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: N3644 Comparing value-initialized iterators
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: N3644 Comparing value-initialized iterators
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]