On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 8:43 AM Richard Biener
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. Bootstrapped
> > and
> > regtested on x86_64. OK for trunk?
>
> I've inspected two users of said overload and they return true. Did you look
> at the rest? I assume that bootstrapping and testing with asserting that
> the callback never returns false in that overload should succeed?
>
> That said, the inconsistency is bad - but how can we be sure we're not
> relying on that? I mean more than just bootstrapping and regtesting ;)
Btw, can you please amend the
/* Call the call back on each pair of key and value with the passed in
arg. */
comment to say how the return value influences iteration? Maybe also
note the traversal is unordered.
Note hash-set.h has the same "problem" (a callback with a bool return
but ignored result). hash-table.h "properly" handles the return.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> >
> > The hash_map::traverse overload taking a non-const Value pointer breaks
> > if the callback returns false. The other overload should behave the
> > same.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kretz <[email protected]>
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * hash-map.h (hash_map::traverse): Let both overloads behave the
> > same.
> > ---
> > gcc/hash-map.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >
> > --
> > ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> > Dr. Matthias Kretz https://mattkretz.github.io
> > GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research https://gsi.de
> > stdₓ::simd
> > ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
