This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Relax std::move_if_noexcept for std::pair
On 20/12/18 22:53 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 12/20/18 9:04 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 08:29, François Dumont <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I eventually find out what was the problem with the
std::move_if_noexcept within associative containers.
The std::pair move default constructor might not move both first
and second member. If any is not moveable it will just copy it. And then
..as it should..
the noexcept qualification of the copy constructor will participate in
the noexcept qualification of the std::pair move constructor. So
std::move_if_noexcept can eventually decide to not use move because a
_copy_ constructor not noexcept qualified.
..and again, as it should.
This is why I am partially specializing __move_if_noexcept_cond. As
there doesn't seem to exist any Standard meta function to find out if
move will take place I resort using std::is_const as in this case for
sure the compiler won't call the move constructor.
That seems wrong; just because a type is or is not const has nothing
to do whether
Indeed, I am not changing that.
The problem I am trying to solve is shown by the tests I have adapted.
Allow more move semantic in associative container where key are stored
I don't understand what problem this is solving, and how it's not
introducing new problems.
I'm not convinced that's a desirable property, especially not if it
needs changes to move_if_noexcept.
But if I make counter_type copy constructor noexcept then I also get
the move on the pair.second instance, great. I am just surprise to
have to make a copy constructor noexcept to have std::move_if_noexcept
work as I expect.
Because the move constructor of pair<const T, U> will copy the first
element not move it, because you can't move from a const object. If
the T(const T&) constructor is noexcept, and the U(U&&) constructor is
also noexcept, then the pair<const T, U> move constructor is noexcept.
The move constructor's exception specification depends on the
exception specifications of whichever constructors it invokes for its
I think I just need to understand why we need std::move_if_noexcept in
unordered containers or even rb_tree. Couldn't we just use std::move ?
No. If moving can throw then we can't provide strong exception safety.
I don't understand what we are trying to avoid with this noexcept
Then maybe stop trying to change how it works :-)