On 15/05/14 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a proposal to fix PR 61143. As explained in the PR I
finally prefer to leave the container in a valid state that is to say
with a non zero number of bucket, that is to say 1, after a move. This
bucket is stored directly in the container so not allocated to leave
the move operations noexcept qualified.
Thanks for fixing this, I like the direction very much. I have a few
comments below ...
With this evolution we could
even make the default constructor noexcept but I don't think it has
any interest.
I tend to agree with Paolo that a noexcept default constructor might
be useful, but let's fix the bug first and consider that later.
Index: include/bits/hashtable.h
===================================================================
--- include/bits/hashtable.h (revision 210479)
+++ include/bits/hashtable.h (working copy)
@@ -316,14 +316,37 @@
size_type _M_element_count;
_RehashPolicy _M_rehash_policy;
+ // A single bucket used when only need 1 bucket. After move the hashtable
+ // is left with only 1 bucket which is not allocated so that we can have
a
+ // noexcept move constructor.
+ // Note that we can't leave hashtable with 0 bucket without adding
+ // numerous checks in the code to avoid 0 modulus.
+ __bucket_type _M_single_bucket;
Does this get initialized in the constructors?
Would it make sense to give it an initializer?
__bucket_type _M_single_bucket = nullptr;
@@ -980,12 +999,16 @@
_M_move_assign(_Hashtable&& __ht, std::true_type)
{
this->_M_deallocate_nodes(_M_begin());
- if (__builtin_expect(_M_bucket_count != 0, true))
- _M_deallocate_buckets();
-
+ _M_deallocate_buckets();
__hashtable_base::operator=(std::move(__ht));
_M_rehash_policy = __ht._M_rehash_policy;
- _M_buckets = __ht._M_buckets;
+ if (__builtin_expect(__ht._M_buckets != &__ht._M_single_bucket, true))
+ _M_buckets = __ht._M_buckets;
What is the value of this->_M_single_bucket now?
Should it be set to nullptr, if only to help debugging?
+ if (__builtin_expect(__ht._M_buckets == &__ht._M_single_bucket, false))
This check appears in a few places, I wonder if it is worth creating a
private member function to hide the details:
bool _M_moved_from() const noexcept
{
return __builtin_expect(_M_buckets == &_M_single_bucket, false);
}
Then just test if (__ht._M_moved_from())
Usually I would think the __builtin_expect should not be inside the
member function, so the caller decides what the expected result is,
but I think in all cases the result is expected to be false. That
matches how move semantics are designed: the object that gets moved
from is expected to be going out of scope, and so will be reused in a
minority of cases.
@@ -1139,7 +1170,14 @@
{
if (__ht._M_node_allocator() == this->_M_node_allocator())
{
- _M_buckets = __ht._M_buckets;
+ if (__builtin_expect(__ht._M_buckets == &__ht._M_single_bucket,
false))
This could be if (__ht._M_moved_from())
@@ -1193,11 +1231,21 @@
std::swap(_M_bucket_count, __x._M_bucket_count);
std::swap(_M_before_begin._M_nxt, __x._M_before_begin._M_nxt);
std::swap(_M_element_count, __x._M_element_count);
+ std::swap(_M_single_bucket, __x._M_single_bucket);
+ // Fix buckets if any is pointing to its single bucket that can't be
+ // swapped.
+ if (_M_buckets == &__x._M_single_bucket)
+ _M_buckets = &_M_single_bucket;
+
+ if (__x._M_buckets == &_M_single_bucket)
+ __x._M_buckets = &__x._M_single_bucket;
+
Does this do more work than necessary, swapping the _M_buckets
members, then updating them again?
How about removing the std::swap(_M_buckets, __x._M_buckets) above and
doing (untested):
if (this->_M_moved_from())
{
if (__x._M_moved_from())
_M_buckets = &_M_single_bucket;
else
_M_buckets = __x._M_buckets;
__x._M_buckets = &__x._M_single_bucket;
}
else if (__x._M_moved_from())
{
__x._M_buckets = _M_buckets;
_M_buckets = &_M_single_bucket;
}
else
std::swap(_M_buckets, __x._M_buckets);
Is that worth it? I'm not sure.
Index: testsuite/23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/copy_assign.cc
===================================================================
--- testsuite/23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/copy_assign.cc
(revision 210479)
+++ testsuite/23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/copy_assign.cc
(working copy)
The changes to this file are not listed in the ChangeLog entry, and we
don't want writes to stdout in the testsuite.
Did you intend to include this in the patch?
Index: testsuite/Makefile.in
===================================================================
--- testsuite/Makefile.in (revision 210479)
+++ testsuite/Makefile.in (working copy)
Same question for this file.
