On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 16:25, Tomasz Kaminski <tkami...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 5:15 PM Tomasz Kaminski <tkami...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 5:04 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 15:50, Tomasz Kaminski <tkami...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 1:42 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The current overload set for __unique_copy handles three cases:
>>> >>
>>> >> - The input range uses forward iterators, the output range does not.
>>> >> This is the simplest case, and can just compare adjacent elements of
>>> >> the input range.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Neither the input range nor output range use forward iterators.
>>> >> This requires a local variable copied from the input range and updated
>>> >> by assigning each element to the local variable.
>>> >>
>>> >> - The output range uses forward iterators.
>>> >> For this case we compare the current element from the input range with
>>> >> the element just written to the output range.
>>> >>
>>> >> There are two problems with this implementation. Firstly, the third case
>>> >> assumes that the value type of the output range can be compared to the
>>> >> value type of the input range, which might not be possible at all, or
>>> >> might be possible but give different results to comparing elements of
>>> >> the input range. This is the problem identified in LWG 2439.
>>> >>
>>> >> Secondly, the third case is used when both ranges use forward iterators,
>>> >> even though the first case could (and should) be used. This means that
>>> >> we compare elements from the output range instead of the input range,
>>> >> with the problems described above (either not well-formed, or might give
>>> >> the wrong results).
>>> >>
>>> >> The cause of the second problem is that the overload for the first case
>>> >> looks like:
>>> >>
>>> >> OutputIterator
>>> >> __unique_copy(ForwardIter, ForwardIter, OutputIterator, BinaryPred,
>>> >> forward_iterator_tag, output_iterator_tag);
>>> >>
>>> >> When the output range uses forward iterators this overload cannot be
>>> >> used, because forward_iterator_tag does not inherit from
>>> >> output_iterator_tag, so is not convertible to it.
>>> >>
>>> >> To fix these problems we need to implement the resolution of LWG 2439 so
>>> >> that the third case is only used when the value types of the two ranges
>>> >> are the same. This ensures that the comparisons are well behaved. We
>>> >> also need to ensure that the first case is used when both ranges use
>>> >> forward iterators.
>>> >>
>>> >> This change replaces a single step of tag dispatching to choose between
>>> >> three overloads with two step of tag dispatching, choosing between two
>>> >> overloads at each step. The first step dispatches based on the iterator
>>> >> category of the input range, ignoring the category of the output range.
>>> >> The second step only happens when the input range uses non-forward
>>> >> iterators, and dispatches based on the category of the output range and
>>> >> whether the value type of the two ranges is the same. So now the cases
>>> >> that are handled are:
>>> >>
>>> >> - The input range uses forward iterators.
>>> >> - The output range uses non-forward iterators or a different value type.
>>> >> - The output range uses forward iterators and has the same value type.
>>> >>
>>> >> For the second case, the old code used __gnu_cxx::__ops::__iter_comp_val
>>> >> to wrap the predicate in another level of indirection. That seems
>>> >> unnecessary, as we can just use a pointer to the local variable instead
>>> >> of an iterator referring to it.
>>> >>
>>> >> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>> >>
>>> >> PR libstdc++/120386
>>> >> * include/bits/stl_algo.h (__unique_copy_1): New overloads for
>>> >> the case where the input range uses non-forward iterators.
>>> >> (__unique_copy): Replace three overloads with two, depending
>>> >> only on the iterator category of the input range. Dispatch to
>>> >> __unique_copy_1 for the non-forward case.
>>> >> (unique_copy): Only pass the input range category to
>>> >> __unique_copy.
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> Tested x86_64-linux.
>>> >
>>> > LGTM. Only small suggestion, regarding the change of order of arguments.
>>>
>>> I forgot to say that I need to add tests for each of the cases,
>>> especially the case that fails with the existing code!
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h | 80 +++++++++++++++-------------
>>> >> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>> >>
>>> >> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
>>> >> b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
>>> >> index f5361aeab7e2..c0bb17f9c8b2 100644
>>> >> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
>>> >> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
>>> >> @@ -918,24 +918,20 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>>> >>
>>> >> __gnu_cxx::__ops::__iter_comp_iter(__binary_pred));
>>> >> }
>>> >>
>>> >> - /**
>>> >> - * This is an uglified
>>> >> - * unique_copy(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _OutputIterator,
>>> >> - * _BinaryPredicate)
>>> >> - * overloaded for forward iterators and output iterator as result.
>>> >> - */
>>> >> + // Implementation of std::unique_copy for forward iterators.
>>> >> + // This case is easy, just compare *i with *(i-1).
>>> >> template<typename _ForwardIterator, typename _OutputIterator,
>>> >> typename _BinaryPredicate>
>>> >> _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
>>> >> _OutputIterator
>>> >> __unique_copy(_ForwardIterator __first, _ForwardIterator __last,
>>> >> _OutputIterator __result, _BinaryPredicate
>>> >> __binary_pred,
>>> >> - forward_iterator_tag, output_iterator_tag)
>>> >> + forward_iterator_tag)
>>> >> {
>>> >> _ForwardIterator __next = __first;
>>> >> *__result = *__first;
>>> >> while (++__next != __last)
>>> >> - if (!__binary_pred(__first, __next))
>>> >> + if (!__binary_pred(__next, __first))
>>> >
>>> > I would prefer if you will not do this change, and pass iterators that
>>> > were already seen as the first argument.
>>>
>>> The standard seems clear that it should be bool(pred(*i, *(i - 1)))
>>> In theory a predicate could depend on that.
>>
>> Oh, indeed.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Note that the forward-output overload, preserves this order:
>>> > *__result = *__first;
>>> > while (++__first != __last)
>>> > if (!__binary_pred(__result, __first))
>>>
>>> Ah yes, well I should have changed that too ;-)
>>>
>>> What's your reason for preferring the current order?
>>
>> That what I would intuitively expect, that left argument is an element that
>> is left to right argument.
>> And if you sorted range with predicate lt, then passing not_fn(lt) is
>> equivalent to checking equality.
>
> It seems that I have built my expectation based on unique, that check i-1, i.
> https://eel.is/c++draft/alg.unique#1
The standard seems clear, however, all three of libstdc++, libc++ and
MSVC use the "wrong" order in unique_copy.
So I think the standard should be changed.
