[PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors
Jonathan Wakely
jwakely@redhat.com
Thu Oct 6 21:34:00 GMT 2016
On 06/10/16 22:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
>Another approach is to rely on existing compiler ability to compute
>conditional noexcept when defaulting implementations. This is what I
>have done in this patch.
>
>The new default constructor on _Rb_tree_node_base is not a problem as
>it is not used to build _Rb_tree_node.
Why not?
>I'll try to do the same for copy constructor/assignment and move
>constructor/assignment.
We need to make sure we don't change whether any of those operations
are trivial (which shouldn't be a problem for copy/move, because they
are definitely very non-trivial and will stay that way!)
Does this change the default constructors from non-trivial to trivial?
>--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
>+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
>@@ -108,6 +108,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
> _Base_ptr _M_left;
> _Base_ptr _M_right;
>
>+ _Rb_tree_node_base() _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
>+ : _M_color(_S_red), _M_parent(0), _M_left(this), _M_right(this)
>+ { }
>+
> static _Base_ptr
> _S_minimum(_Base_ptr __x) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
> {
Another option would be:
struct _Head_node : _Rb_tree_node_base {
_Head_node() {
_M_color = _S_red;
_M_parent = _Base_ptr();
_M_left = _M_right = this;
}
};
>@@ -603,23 +607,33 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
> {
> _Key_compare _M_key_compare;
> _Rb_tree_node_base _M_header;
_Head_node _M_header;
That way *only* this node gets the zero-initialization, not all node
bases.
With either solution we can get rid of _M_header() in every
ctor-initializer-list.
>+#if __cplusplus < 201103L
> size_type _M_node_count; // Keeps track of size of tree.
>+#else
>+ size_type _M_node_count = 0; // Keeps track of size of tree.
>+#endif
>
>+#if __cplusplus < 201103L
> _Rb_tree_impl()
> : _Node_allocator(), _M_key_compare(), _M_header(),
> _M_node_count(0)
>- { _M_initialize(); }
>+ { }
>+#else
>+ _Rb_tree_impl() = default;
>+#endif
>
> _Rb_tree_impl(const _Key_compare& __comp, const _Node_allocator& __a)
>- : _Node_allocator(__a), _M_key_compare(__comp), _M_header(),
>- _M_node_count(0)
>- { _M_initialize(); }
>+ : _Node_allocator(__a), _M_key_compare(__comp), _M_header()
>+#if __cplusplus < 201103L
>+ , _M_node_count(0)
>+#endif
Doing this conditionally seems pointless, why not just set it here
unconditionally?
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list