On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 21:33, François Dumont wrote:
> On 11/11/21 9:41 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 at 11:55, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 21:36, François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet another version this time with only 1 guard implementation. The
>>>> predicate to invalidate the safe iterators has been externalized.
>>>>
>>>> Ok to commit ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like this version a lot - thanks for persisting with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm seeing new failures with this:
>>
>> make check RUNTESTFLAGS="conformance.exp=23_containers/*/invalidation/*
>> --target_board=unix/-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG/-std=gnu++98"
>>
>> FAIL: 23_containers/deque/debug/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess
>> errors)
>> FAIL: 23_containers/list/debug/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: 23_containers/map/debug/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: 23_containers/multimap/debug/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess
>> errors)
>> FAIL: 23_containers/multiset/debug/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess
>> errors)
>> FAIL: 23_containers/set/debug/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: 23_containers/vector/debug/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess
>> errors)
>>
>
> It's caused by:
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_container.h
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_container.h
> @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ namespace __gnu_debug
> { }
> #endif
>
> - public:
> // Copy assignment invalidate all iterators.
> _Safe_container&
> operator=(const _Safe_container&) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
>
>
> For C++98 mode that gets called explicitly by the user-provided copy
> assignment operators in the derived class.
>
> I'm testing the attached fix.
>
> I am also testing a patch but yours looks nicer so go ahead.
>
I've pushed it to trunk now.
> I'll just complete it with some additional cleanup I did to suppress
> _Safe_container::_M_safe() and reduce usages of _M_base().
>
Sounds good, thanks.
