On 02/10/2024 19:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 at 17:39, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 18:22, François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
Once https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-September/059568.html
will be accepted we will be able fix this long lasting issue that
std::stable_sort and std::inplace_merge are forcing the functor to take
const& parameters even when iterators used in range are not const ones.
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3031 said that's OK.
At least not "fixing" this in pre-C++11 mode is not a problem then.
And AFAIU the resolution it does not say that allowing it is forbidden
neither.
Should I add the test case shown in the Issue to the testsuite ? It's
still UB no ?
And ... I guess that means we don't need to worry about the non-const
X::operator<(X&) case?
Before C++20 the standard implied it should work, and that's what
we've traditionally supported. But maybe we can stop supporting that,
if we treat the C++20 change as a DR for previous standards?
Hmm. That would make your clean-up a lot simpler. That's what you had
in the earlier patch, right?
I cannot remember and could check but to be honest I'm quite proud of
the proposal. I find it already much simpler that the current approach.
I don't think Issue 3031 resolution is proposing to force const-ness but
if needed it would be very easy to do so with my proposal.
Note that I recently run all testsuite with both patches under Linux x64
using default -std and got no regression. I'll run it one more time for
C++98 though.
