BillyONeal added a comment.
Do you folks want me to port this test case for move-only T into libcxx? (I
added this to our test harness) Note that discussion on validity is ongoing on
lists.
#define _SILENCE_PARALLEL_ALGORITHMS_EXPERIMENTAL_WARNING
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <algorithm>
#include <execution>
#include <memory>
#include <iterator>
#include <numeric>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
#include <parallel_algorithms_utilities.hpp>
#include <pmretvals.h>
using namespace std;
using namespace std::execution;
void verify(const bool b) {
if (!b) {
exit(PM_TEST_FAIL);
}
}
vector<unique_ptr<vector<unsigned int>>> get_move_only_test_data(const size_t
testSize) {
vector<unique_ptr<vector<unsigned int>>> testData;
testData.reserve(testSize);
for (size_t idx = 0; idx < testSize; ++idx) {
testData.emplace_back(make_unique<vector<unsigned int>>(1,
static_cast<unsigned int>(idx)));
}
return testData;
}
template<class ExPo>
void test_case_move_only(const size_t testSize, ExPo&& exec) {
auto testData = get_move_only_test_data(testSize);
unique_ptr<vector<unsigned int>> result =
transform_reduce(std::forward<ExPo>(exec),
make_move_iterator(testData.begin()),
make_move_iterator(testData.end()),
make_unique<vector<unsigned int>>(),
[](unique_ptr<vector<unsigned int>> lhs, unique_ptr<vector<unsigned
int>> rhs) {
lhs->insert(lhs->end(), rhs->begin(), rhs->end());
return lhs;
},
[](unique_ptr<vector<unsigned int>> target) {
verify(target->size() == 1); // should only be called directly on
the input sequence
target->back() *= 10;
return target;
});
sort(result->begin(), result->end());
for (size_t idx = 0; idx < testSize; ++idx) {
verify((*result)[idx] == idx * 10);
}
}
int main() {
parallel_test_case(test_case_move_only<const sequenced_policy&>, seq);
parallel_test_case(test_case_move_only<const parallel_policy&>, par);
return PM_TEST_PASS;
}
================
Comment at: include/numeric:245
for (; __first1 != __last1; ++__first1, (void) ++__first2)
__init = __b1(__init, __b2(*__first1, *__first2));
return __init;
----------------
BillyONeal wrote:
> It's arguable that this should be _VSTD::move(__init); I asked SG1 / LEWG
> about that. (After all, if they're going to make inner_product do that this
> should too)
Any comment on whether these should have extra moves added @mclow.lists ?
================
Comment at:
test/std/numerics/numeric.ops/transform.reduce/transform_reduce_iter_iter_iter_init.pass.cpp:61
+inline MoveOnly operator+(const MoveOnly& lhs, const MoveOnly& rhs)
+{
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> BillyONeal wrote:
> > Should these go in MoveOnly.h ?
> I think so. While you're at it, you can remove the `friend` declaration in
> `MoveOnly` - that's a remnant.
Should I also add op== and op< while I'm in there for testing things like sort?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41372
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
