The begining of [range.prim].
Details
- Reviewers
• Quuxplusone EricWF ldionne cjdb - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rG600686d75f55: [libcxx][ranges] Add ranges::size CPO.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
35 | Note: phab CLI gets confused if I put multiple dependencies on a patch, so I'm just re-implementing this here and I'll remove it once D100587 lands. | |
59 | Also note: as I understand it, integral and integer like are interchangeable for us, if this is not the case, let me know. |
Implementation LGTM, will look at tests soonish.
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
55 | Thanks for making something that clears up the double negative! | |
73 | Yeah, I don't think this one is necessary here. | |
78 | See http://eel.is/c++draft/ranges.syn#1. The result needs to be the iter_difference_t<_Tp>, and since I've asserted that we only care about (extended) integral types, we're clear to use make_unsigned_t<iter_difference_t<_Tp>>. | |
105 |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
86–90 | (A) I see how integral auto is mimicking https://eel.is/c++draft/range.prim.size#4 ; however, that seems to inappropriately restrict people from trying to use their own "integer-like" types, at the cost of compile-time-slowness and source-code-size. I propose that you remove the word integral from every overload here and below. (B) Your noexcept specification fails to account for the decay-copy that happens if __t.size() returns const SomeType&. Admittedly, this is a problem only if you remove the integral constraint, because decay-copying a primitive integral type can't possibly throw. (C) for the record: One might observe that all these conditional-noexcept-specifications violate the spirit of P0884 "Extending the noexcept Policy" and propose removing them; but @tcanens has pointed out that "expression-equivalent to" implies "has the same noexceptness as," so we are actually mandated to use (correct) noexcept-specifications throughout basically all of Ranges. (Ugh, but unavoidable.) | |
105 | Could you explain why this =delete'd overload is necessary? | |
116 | You can delete this line now. Thanks for removing this macro. | |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.access/range.prim/size.compile.pass.cpp | ||
122–123 | Throughout: s/Convertable/Convertible/ | |
126 | (A) Remove constexpr. Remove the function body. size_t size() const; is sufficient. | |
192–196 | You use assert and have a main, but this file's name is size.compile.pass.cpp. | |
libcxx/test/support/test_range.h | ||
20 | This function body should be unnecessary. If it's needed by some test, that test is wrong. |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
86–90 |
Only the implementation may provide integer-like types, so this is a non-concern. | |
101 | This can be range_difference_t<remove_cvref_t<_Tp>>. | |
105 | It provides good intrinsic documentation. @zoecarver can you please contrast the diagnostic with/without this deletion, and maybe upload them to a GitHub gist? |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
86–90 | See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1522r1.pdf, specifically para 2.2
Also, this: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100080#inline-952255 The Standard requires that these are only integer like types, and tells us that we get to decide what that means. I think, if for no other reason than we should strive for maximum compatibility (i.e., someone shouldn't be able to write some integer type and use it in their program such that libc++ compiles and libstdc++ or msvc doesn't) we should require these types are integral. Also, I think there is an argument for correctness here. The "compile-time-slowness and source-code-size" are extremely minimal here. The former likely can't be measured over noise. | |
105 | This is a so called poison pill. I could be persuaded to remove it, but I think it makes the error message nicer for users. I'd like to point out that other implementations do use it. |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
105 | @cjdb I didn't see your comments when I made mine :) Anyway, here's a gist: https://gist.github.com/zoecarver/594015f42664e3daa7ab7c3978027682 I'm now less convinced that deleting this overload is the correct way to go. |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
105 | @zoecarver: No. The "poison pill" is the thing on lines 50-51. This is a plain old deleted overload of operator(), and GCC/MSVC seem not to use it. Check out the godbolt where the difference is observable: https://godbolt.org/z/PGxzf4jGz and compare it locally versus your implementation. |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
105 | Admittedly the deleted function is less useful in ranges::size than in ranges::begin because ranges::size accommodates all array bounded arrays, not just lvalue arrays. I support whichever provides cleaner diagnostics. |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
82 |
This needs to be changed to support all bounded arrays, not just lvalue bounded arrays (especially in the wake of the deleted overload). |
- Fix based on review.
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.access/range.prim/size.compile.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
126 |
sized_range<const T> is true when T has a const member. It's false if the size member isn't const. That's why I actually wanted to keep this as simple as possible. It's exactly the same as SizeMember except it's disabled. I can add another one to test with a const member. |
Tests mostly LGTM, but I couldn't find any tests for when member size and ADL size return signed integers. It's important that signedness is preserved in both cases, so we should add tests if there aren't any.
libcxx/include/type_traits | ||
---|---|---|
2814 | No longer necessary (I'd prefer it be added in a separate commit). | |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.access/range.prim/size.pass.cpp | ||
38 ↗ | (On Diff #339809) | Please also test SizeFunctionRef and SizeFunctionRefToConst. |
136–139 ↗ | (On Diff #339809) | Users can't do this: http://eel.is/c++draft/ranges#range.sized-3. |
148–153 ↗ | (On Diff #339809) | This, however, is fine :-) |
170–176 ↗ | (On Diff #339809) | Please add a test for when the iterator isn't a forward_iterator. |
Overall looks great, with a few comments.
Also:
- Is there something to update in the Ranges progress document?
- Can we add conformance tests for the types defined in libc++? std::vector & friends.
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
10 | _LIBCPP___RANGES_SIZE_H if we want to be consistent? I agree it's ugly as hell though, so maybe we should revisit that policy! But for now let's be consistent? | |
59 | I think we need to introduce a proper concept for integer-like types: template <typename _Ip> concept __integer_like = !same_as<bool, _Ip> && integral<_Ip>; According to the Standard:
That would also be an indirection point where we can add our own implementation-defined integer-class type if we have one. Right now, my understanding is that this concept would be satisfied if t.size() returned a bool. Instead, we should use -> __integer_like so that bool is excluded. Can you confirm that it's a problem and add a test that fails when that's the case? This comment applies to other uses of integral below (and so we should add tests for those too). | |
82–90 | Just thinking out loud, but this works if you pass a reference to a const array because it'll deduce _Tp = Foo const such that the whole signature is Foo const (&)[_Sz]? | |
107–108 | Would it be worth creating a __to_unsigned_like helper function that we can reuse? I don't know the spec by heart, but I imagine that if they factored out the term of art to-unsigned-like in the spec (https://eel.is/c++draft/ranges#syn-1), it must be because we're re-using it elsewhere? | |
111 | // end namespace __size | |
114 | Indent inside the namespace! |
libcxx/include/__ranges/size.h | ||
---|---|---|
59 | Yes, but it looks like I can do this in D100080. Nice catch! http://eel.is/c++draft/iterators#iterator.concept.winc-11 |
(Sorry forgot to respond to a few comments...)
Is there something to update in the Ranges progress document?
I already marked [range.prim] as in progress/assigned to me. Once it's done I'll mark it as complete.
This should be done in the sized_range patch IMO, similar to how I deferred conformance tests for D100255 to D100269.
As usual, I don't feel strongly. I'm happy to implement this with sized_range.
LGTM once you add a test with bool (to catch the change you made by using __integer_like), and CI passes.
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.access/range.prim/size.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
22 ↗ | (On Diff #342054) | Please add a test to ensure RangeSizeT is semiregular. |
libcxx/include/__iterator/concepts.h | ||
---|---|---|
142–145 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | It seems to me that this function belongs right below make_unsigned_t, and not right below bidirectional_iterator. |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.access/range.prim/size.pass.cpp | ||
47 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | constexpr bool (and likewise throughout) |
172 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | size_t size() const |
182–185 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | The comment doesn't match the code. I believe you intended to write inline constexpr bool std::disable_sized_range<const ConstSizeMemberDisabled> = true; Also, please rename to something like s/ConstSizeMemberDisabled/ImproperlyDisabled/ |
195 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | Pass-by-const-value alert! |
212–222 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | Do this instead: struct HasMinusBeginEnd { struct sentinel { friend bool operator==(sentinel, forward_iterator<int*>); friend constexpr long operator-(sentinel, forward_iterator<int*>) { return 2; } friend long operator-(forward_iterator<int*>, sentinel); }; friend constexpr forward_iterator<int*> begin(HasMinusBeginEnd) { return {}; } friend constexpr sentinel end(HasMinusBeginEnd) { return {}; } }; This keeps everything nicely packaged together, and also indicates (by the presence of function bodies) which functions are actually called by the test, and even (by the presence of constexpr) which functions are constexpr-called by the test. Similarly for the other tests. |
231 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | Should this comment s/Int/short/ or do I not understand it? What is capital-i Int in this context? |
238 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | Is the l meaningful? |
252–260 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | This is a good test. I'd like to see a similar one where disable_sized_range is not specialized; then my understanding is that std::ranges::size(a) would be supposed to return a.size() i.e. 1, is that right? |
266 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | This should be std::make_unsigned_t<std::ptrdiff_t>, I believe. I don't think we should assume ptrdiff_t is invariably signed long. |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.access/range.prim/size.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
212–222 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | I don't want to have to define sentinel three times, so I'm going to keep it out-of-line. But I'll make the comparison operator a hidden friend. |
266 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | struct HasMinusBeginEnd { friend constexpr forward_iterator<int*> begin(HasMinusBeginEnd) { return {}; } friend constexpr sentinel end(HasMinusBeginEnd) { return {}; } }; constexpr long operator-(const sentinel, const forward_iterator<int*>) { return 2; } constexpr long operator-(const forward_iterator<int*>, const sentinel) { return 2; } So long is hardcoded in this case (as the minus operator's return type). |
266 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) |
If that assumption is ever made in this test, it will be caught by the windows and arm bots. |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.access/range.prim/size.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
212–222 ↗ | (On Diff #342763) | Please put the sentinel in-line in the body of the class. Yes, three times. You mention below that the unsigned long I thought was due to the difference_type` of forward_iterator is actually due to the return type of the operator- on line 221. This is exactly the kind of subtle detail that is best dealt with by keeping code close together and using member classes. Please do. If you don't, I'll have to do it in a separate followup commit, and I don't want to have to remember that. |
_LIBCPP___RANGES_SIZE_H if we want to be consistent? I agree it's ugly as hell though, so maybe we should revisit that policy! But for now let's be consistent?