On 06/10/17 18:01 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 03/10/2017 22:39, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:38:06 +0100
Jonathan Wakely<jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 28/09/17 15:06 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:34:25 +0100
Jonathan Wakely<jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
+ VERIFY(i == std::istreambuf_iterator<char>());
+
+ VERIFY(memcmp(b, r, 36) == 0);
+
+ s << q;
+ VERIFY(!s.fail());
+
+ copy_n(i, 36, r);
This is undefined behaviour. The end-of-stream iterator value cannot
be dereferenced.
Within this test istreambuf_iterator in eof state never dereferenced.
That is quite implementation dependent.
The libc++ and VC++ implementations fail this test, because once an
istreambuf_iterator has been detected to reach end-of-stream it
doesn't get "reset" by changes to the streambuf.
If we will keep even "unspecified" behaviour same, then bug fix/drawback
removing become extremely hard: it should be identified as drawback
in all libs almost simultaneously.
The libc++ implementation crashes, because operator== on an
end-of-stream iterator sets its streambuf* to null, and any further
increment or dereference will segfault.
So this is testing something that other implementations don't support,
and isn't justifiable from the standard.
I will use N4687 as reference.
27.2.3 par.2 Table 95:
++r
Requires: r is dereferenceable. Postconditions: r is dereferenceable or r is
past-the-end; any copies of the previous value of r are no longer required
either to be dereferenceable or to be in the domain of ==.
(void)r++ equivalent to (void)++r
*r++
{ T tmp = *r;
++r;
return tmp; }
[BTW, you see that r++ without dereference has no sense, and even more,
copies of the previous
value of r are no longer
required either to be
dereferenceable or to be in
the domain of ==.
From this follow, that postfix increment operator shouldn't return
istreambuf_iterator.
]
The test itself simulate "stop and go" istream usage.
stringstream is convenient for behaviuor illustration, but in "real life"
I can assume socket or tty on this place.
At the very minimum we should have a comment in the test explaining
how it relies on non-standard, non-portable behaviour.
But I'd prefer to avoid introducing more divergence from other
implementations.
Standard itself say nothting about "stop and go" scenario.
At least I don't see any words pro or contra.
But current implementation block usage of istreambuf_iterator
with underlying streams like socket or tty, so istreambuf_iterator become
almost useless structure for practice.
Why not creating a new istreambuf_iterator each time you need to check
that streambuf is not in eof anymore ?
We have three issues with istreambuf_iterator:
- debug-dependent behaviour
Fixed.
- EOL of istreambuf_iterator when it reach EOF (but this not mean
EOL of associated streambuf)
Controversial.
- postfix increment operator return istreambuf_iterator, but here
expected restricted type, that accept only dereference, if it possible.
I agree that we need to fix this last point too.
Consider this code:
std::istringstream inf("abc");
std::istreambuf_iterator<char> j(inf), eof;
std::istreambuf_iterator<char> i = j++;
assert( *i == 'a' );
At this point it looks like i is pointing to 'a' but then when you do:
std::string str(i, eof);
you have:
assert( str == "ac" );
We jump other the 'b'.
Right, but this code isn't required to work. These are Input
Iterators. The fact that incrementing j affects other copies of the
iterator is expected.
We could improve the situation by adding a debug assertion that _M_c
is eof when pre-increment is being used
Hmm, interesting idea.
or by changing semantic of
pre-increment to only call sbumpc if _M_c is eof. But then we would
need to consider _M_c in find overload and in some other places in the
lib I think.
Rather than going through this complicated path I agree with Petr that
we need to simply implement the solution advised by the Standard with
the nested proxy type.
This is what I have done in the attached patch in a naive way. Do we
need to have abi compatibility here ? If so I'll rework it.
This patch will make libstdc++ pass the llvm test. I even duplicate it
on our side with a small refinement to check for the return value of
the proxy::operator*().
I agree with the earlier analysis that the libc++ test is not required
to work (i've reported this to the libc++ maintainers and expect them
to move it to their nonportable test directory). So we don't need to
change our implementation to make it pass.
