Details
- Reviewers
ldionne Mordante • Quuxplusone - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rG4ff70dba3839: [libc++] Fix undefined behavior in `std::filebuf`
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
Thanks for looking into this! I have some comments, but overall this looks sensible. I don't know this implementation very well, apologies if some of my comments/questions are naive.
libcxx/include/fstream | ||
---|---|---|
429–433 | Suggestion (IMO that makes it clearer because we can see a pattern in how we initialize those): ptrdiff_t __ln = __extbufnext_ ? __extbufnext_ - __extbuf_ : 0; ptrdiff_t __le = __extbufend_ ? __extbufend_ - __extbuf_ : 0; ptrdiff_t __rn = __rhs.__extbufnext_ ? __rhs.__extbufnext_ - __rhs.__extbuf_ : 0; ptrdiff_t __re = __rhs.__extbufend_ ? __rhs.__extbufend_ - __rhs.__extbuf_ : 0; | |
433 | I know nothing about this class' implementation and I haven't studied it deeply, but this is basically a small buffer optimization, right? I'd add comments like this: // *this uses the small buffer, __rhs doesn't if (...) { } // *this doesn't use the small buffer, __rhs does else if (...) { } // *this and __rhs both use the small buffer else { } Actually, this makes me think -- aren't we missing the case where neither is using the small buffer? | |
450 | We can use std:: for new code, no need to use _VSTD:: anymore! | |
libcxx/test/std/input.output/file.streams/fstreams/filebuf.assign/nonmember_swap_min.pass.cpp | ||
2 | This test seems to have failed on Windows: https://buildkite.com/llvm-project/libcxx-ci/builds/9676#30ce63ab-bc21-4a52-b236-4148667ef48c | |
12 | Can you add a comment explaining what this tests, along with links to the fixed issues? |
Thanks for reviewing this @ldionne!
libcxx/include/fstream | ||
---|---|---|
433 |
Right. I've added comments as you suggested.
Good question, but this case is already handled by the outer if. I've added a comment there as well. | |
450 | OK, thanks for the info. I was just "doing as the Romans do"... | |
libcxx/test/std/input.output/file.streams/fstreams/filebuf.assign/nonmember_swap_min.pass.cpp | ||
2 | Hm, I don't have a Windows machine where I could debug this, so I unfortunately can't fix this myself. But note that the assertion before the swap fails, so my changes can't have broken it, I think? I've disabled the test on Windows for now. |
libcxx/test/std/input.output/file.streams/fstreams/filebuf.assign/nonmember_swap_min.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1 | Could we also add this in libcxx/test/std/input.output/file.streams/fstreams/filebuf.assign/nonmember_swap.pass.cpp: // lhs uses a small buffer, rhs is empty { std::filebuf f; assert(f.open(temp.c_str(), std::ios_base::out | std::ios_base::in | std::ios_base::trunc) != 0); assert(f.is_open()); assert(f.sputn("123", 3) == 3); f.pubseekoff(1, std::ios_base::beg); assert(f.sgetc() == '2'); std::filebuf f2; swap(f, f2); assert(!f.is_open()); assert(f2.is_open()); assert(f2.sgetc() == '2'); } This basically reverses the order of arguments to swap in the test that is already there. Perhaps we should also add a test that checks for swapping two filebufs that are not using the small buffer? | |
32 | I don't think you ever use tmp, I think you could remove it altogether. |
libcxx/test/std/input.output/file.streams/fstreams/filebuf.assign/nonmember_swap_min.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
12–14 | Don't make it LIBCXX-WINDOWS-FIXME, we don't want to add more of those. They were meant to only be used for the initial batch to get the testsuite working in such configs. We should be able to get rid of them and finally close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/32077 real soon now, I'm just waiting for a CI runner upgrade) A plain XFAIL with such a target triple (or just XFAIL: windows works too), with a FIXME comment, should be fine. But I can see if I can have a look at it... |
D122612 is good to go, I think you should be able to rebase onto main soon, apply my remaining comments and then we can ship this!
Suggestion (IMO that makes it clearer because we can see a pattern in how we initialize those):