On 17/08/2023 19:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 14:27, François Dumont via Libstdc++
<libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
Here is the fixed patch tested in all 3 modes:

- _GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI

- !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && !_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI

- !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI

I don't know what you have in mind for the change below but I wanted to
let you know that I tried to put COW std::basic_string into a nested
__cow namespace when _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI. But it had more impact on
string-inst.cc so I preferred the macro substitution approach.
I was thinking of implementing the necessary special members functions
of __cow_string directly, so they are ABI compatible with the COW
std::basic_string but don't actually reuse the code. That would mean
we don't need to compile and instantiate the whole COW string just to
use a few members from it. But that can be done later, the macro
approach seems OK for now.

You'll see that when cow_string.h is included while _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI == 1 then I am hiding a big part of the basic_string definition. Initially it was to avoid to have to include basic_string.tcc but it is also a lot of useless code indeed.



There are some test failing when !_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI that are
unrelated with my changes. I'll propose fixes in coming days.
Which tests? I run the entire testsuite with
-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 several times per day and I'm not seeing
failures.

I'll review the patch ASAP, thanks for working on it.

So far the only issue I found are in the mode !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && !_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI. They are:

23_containers/unordered_map/96088.cc
23_containers/unordered_multimap/96088.cc
23_containers/unordered_multiset/96088.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/96088.cc
ext/debug_allocator/check_new.cc
ext/malloc_allocator/check_new.cc
ext/malloc_allocator/deallocate_local.cc
ext/new_allocator/deallocate_local.cc
ext/pool_allocator/allocate_chunk.cc
ext/throw_allocator/deallocate_local.cc

but not sure I'll try to fix those in this context.

François

Reply via email to