On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 06:02, François Dumont via Libstdc++ <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Remove useless constructor checks > > Creating a safe iterator from a normal iterator is done within the > library where we > already know that it is done correctly. The rare situation where a > user would use safe > iterators for his own purpose is non-Standard code so outside > _GLIBCXX_DEBUG scope. For > those reasons the __msg_init_singular is useless and can be removed. > > Additionally in the copy constructor used for post-increment and > post-decrement operators > the __msg_init_copy_singular check can also be ommitted because of > the preliminary > __msg_bad_inc and __msg_bad_dec checks. > > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: > > * include/debug/safe_iterator.h > (_Safe_iterator<>::_Unsafe_call): New.
I don't like the name "unsafe call". Why is it unsafe? As you say above, we don't need to check because we know that it's only called in a context where it's safe. Can we call it _Unchecked instead of _Unsafe_call? That seems like a more accurate description of the behaviour. > (_Safe_iterator(const _Safe_iterator&, _Unsafe_call): New. > (_Safe_iterator::operator++(int)): Use latter. > (_Safe_iterator::operator--(int)): Likewise. > (_Safe_iterator(_Iterator, const _Safe_sequence_base*)): > Remove !_M_insular() > check. > * include/debug/safe_local_iterator.h > (_Safe_local_iterator<>::_Unsafe_call): > New. > (_Safe_local_iterator(const _Safe_local_iterator&, > _Unsafe_call): New. > (_Safe_local_iterator::operator++(int)): Use latter. > * src/c++11/debug.cc (_S_debug_messages): Add as comment > the _Debug_msg_id > entry associated to the array entry. These comments are a great idea, thanks. If you agree with the _Unchecked name, OK to commit with that change.
