On 08/06/20 21:07 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 05/06/20 22:24 +0200, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc b/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc index 888ac803ae5..ca4e2d52d1d 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_iterator.tcc @@ -470,6 +470,80 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION return __equal_aux1(__first1, __last1, __first2); }+ template<typename _Ite1, typename _Seq1, typename _Cat1, + typename _II2> + int + __lexicographical_compare_aux( + const ::__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Ite1, _Seq1, _Cat1>& __first1, + const ::__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Ite1, _Seq1, _Cat1>& __last1, + _II2 __first2, _II2 __last2) + { + typename ::__gnu_debug::_Distance_traits<_Ite1>::__type __dist1; + __glibcxx_check_valid_range2(__first1, __last1, __dist1); + __glibcxx_check_valid_range(__first2, __last2); + + if (__dist1.second > ::__gnu_debug::__dp_equality) + return std::__lexicographical_compare_aux(__first1.base(), + __last1.base(), + __first2, __last2); + return std::__lexicographical_compare_aux1(__first1, __last1, + __first2, __last2);What's the rationale for the choice of whether to call aux or aux1 here? It seems to be that if we know [first1, last1) is a valid range, we use aux with the unsafe iterators (which means we do overload resolution again for all the overloads that include _Safe_iterator, but we know we don't have safe iterators now). Otherwise, if we don't know it's a valid range, we call aux1 with the safe iterators. Why don't we use aux1 in both cases?
Oh, is it because aux will still use __niter_base and so turn __normal_iterator arguments into pointers?
