https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101542
Bug ID: 101542
Summary: __gnu_cxx::sequence_buffer const copy constructor is
badly broken
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This problem showed up when we were running the GCC 4.9.4 testsuite with the
latest Clang trunk as the compiler, and found that the ext/rope/4.cc test
started failing -- producing "wibblewibble" when it should produce "wibble".
However, the problem is broader than that, and affects much more current GCC
versions as well -- as can be seen at https://godbolt.org/z/74W78rdWP.
Compiling the following program with Clang trunk produces "hellohello" as
output:
----
#include <ext/rope>
#include <iostream>
template<typename T> T make_copy(const T &x) { return x; }
int main() {
std::string s;
__gnu_cxx::sequence_buffer<std::string> a(s);
{
__gnu_cxx::sequence_buffer<std::string> b = a;
b.push_back('h');
b.push_back('e');
b.push_back('l');
b.push_back('l');
b.push_back('o');
// Making a copy causes sequence_buffer to break.
make_copy(b);
}
std::cout << s;
}
----
This started failing with a recent Clang change
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7d2d5a3a6d7aaa40468c30250bf6b0938ef02c08),
described as "Apply P1825 as Defect Report from C++11 up to C++20". See
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1825r0.html for the
defect report details. I would guess that GCC will be applying a similar
change.
My colleagues Jorge Gorbe and Richard Smith did a lot of digging on this, and
Richard explains the problem as follows:
----
The problem with sequence_buffer is that the sequence_buffer(const
sequence_buffer&) copy constructor copies the pending characters in the buffer
to the new copy, and when both are destroyed, they get flushed to the
underlying sequence twice.
But sequence_buffer is more broken than that: it also has another constructor,
sequence_buffer(sequence_buffer&) that has different semantics: it flushes the
source first. So if you only ever use non-const sequence_buffer objects, never
modify a copied-from object, and never do anything that would call the
sequence_buffer(const sequence_buffer&) constructor, it will appear to work.
And that's what this test was relying on.
Part of the consequence of the Clang change is that in code like this:
sequence_buffer f(sequence_buffer x) {
return x;
}
... the return statement unconditionally behaves like return
(sequence_buffer&&)x;. And that means that we now choose the
sequence_buffer(const sequence_buffer&) constructor, not the
sequence_buffer(sequence_buffer&) constructor, because a non-const lvalue
reference can't bind to an rvalue. Ultimately, I think that happens at line
342 of stl_algobase.h ("return __result"), here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git?p=gcc.git;a=blame;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/stl_algobase.h;hb=9b61c47826156fe17fd5f4306470ade01e2fc4dc#l238.
So: this libstdc++ code is broken, and the test really should never have
passed.
----
In our case, we're simply xfailing the test since we don't have any code that
uses __gnu_cxx::sequence_buffer or __gnu_cxx::rope, but I'm passing this bug
report along in hopes that it's useful to the libstdc++ maintainers. :)
