On Dec 27, 2022, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Would it make sense to also add assertions that such entries aren't
> Traits::is_deleted? (both for hash_map and hash_set)
Yeah, I guess so. I've come up with something for hash-table proper
too, coming up in 17/17.
Just like the recently-added checks for empty entries, add checks for
deleted entries as well. This didn't catch any problems, but it might
prevent future accidents. Suggested by David Malcolm.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install?
for gcc/ChangeLog
* hash-map.h (put, get_or_insert): Check that added entry
doesn't look deleted either.
& hash-set.h (add): Likewise.
---
gcc/hash-map.h | 8 +++++---
gcc/hash-set.h | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/hash-map.h b/gcc/hash-map.h
index 63fa21cf37c5b..e6ca9cf5e6429 100644
--- a/gcc/hash-map.h
+++ b/gcc/hash-map.h
@@ -173,8 +173,9 @@ public:
if (ins)
{
e->m_key = k;
- new ((void *) &e->m_value) Value (v);
- gcc_checking_assert (!Traits::is_empty (*e));
+ new ((void *)&e->m_value) Value (v);
+ gcc_checking_assert (!Traits::is_empty (*e)
+ && !Traits::is_deleted (*e));
}
else
e->m_value = v;
@@ -204,7 +205,8 @@ public:
{
e->m_key = k;
new ((void *)&e->m_value) Value ();
- gcc_checking_assert (!Traits::is_empty (*e));
+ gcc_checking_assert (!Traits::is_empty (*e)
+ && !Traits::is_deleted (*e));
}
if (existed != NULL)
diff --git a/gcc/hash-set.h b/gcc/hash-set.h
index a98121a060eed..08e1851d5118d 100644
--- a/gcc/hash-set.h
+++ b/gcc/hash-set.h
@@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ public:
{
new (e) Key (k);
// Catch attempts to insert e.g. a NULL pointer.
- gcc_checking_assert (!Traits::is_empty (*e));
+ gcc_checking_assert (!Traits::is_empty (*e)
+ && !Traits::is_deleted (*e));
}
return existed;
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
