Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [STDCXX-550] Please peer review this change.
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:39:12 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3802@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
Thread-Topic: [STDCXX-550] Please peer review this change.
Thread-Index: AcjFCmjHYp6byj0CTJOw7Hhmjx7eHgAhJzdA
References: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A37FC@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <48445BA9.6030106@roguewave.com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A37FE@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <4844723F.5050004@roguewave.com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A37FF@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <4844850E.7090005@roguewave.com>
From: "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemings@roguewave.com>
To: <dev@stdcxx.apache.org>

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 5:41 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [STDCXX-550] Please peer review this change.
>=20
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> > =20
> >=20
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of=20
> Martin Sebor
> >> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:21 PM
> >> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [STDCXX-550] Please peer review this change.
> >>
> >> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >>> =20
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]=20
> >>>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:44 PM
> >>>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [STDCXX-550] Please peer review this change.
> >>>>
> >>>> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >>>>> =20
> >>>>> Would like to get another set of eyes on this before I submit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> $ svn diff include/deque
> >>>>> Index: include/deque
> >>>>>
> >> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >>>>> --- include/deque       (revision 662487)
> >>>>> +++ include/deque       (working copy)
> >>>>> @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@
> >>>>>      void _C_insert (const iterator &__it,
> >>>>>                      _IntType __n, _IntType __x, int) {
> >>>>>          // see 23.1.1, p9 and DR 438
> >>>>> -        _C_insert_n (__it, __n, __x);
> >>>>> +        _C_insert_n (__it, __n, const_reference (__x));
> >>>> I suspect this is not correct. Suppose the type of __x is
> >>>> a 4 byte int and const_reference is an 8 byte long. The cast
> >>>> will make _C_insert_n() to read 4 bytes past the end of __x.
> >>>> A better fix might be to cast __x to value_type, as long as
> >>>> doing so doesn't violate [sequence.reqmts].
> >>> Yep.  Good call.  Will change to value_type() cast.
> >> Do read DR 438 before applying the cast. There are some obscure
> >> corner cases here, e.g., IntType being a user-defined "integer-
> >> like" type. I don't know if we support this case now, or if we
> >> do, if it's being tested, but suffice it to say that there are
> >> subtle differences between direct-initialization either via
> >> a function-style cast or static_cast, or copy-initialization
> >> (passing arguments to functions).
> >=20
> > I did read the DR briefly.  Perhaps I should add some conditional
> > compilation so that __x is converted using value_type() only when
> > using Sun C++?  That would limit the scope of the change and the
> > issue only relates to this compiler anywho.
>=20
> I don't think we want to do it differently for different compilers.
>=20
> >=20
> > Or should I just skip it entirely and leave the warnings as they
> > are?
>=20
> That depends on what a small test case looks like. How likely are
> users to run into the same warning and what can they do to silence
> it? A small test case reproducing the warning should help answer
> these questions.

I don't think a test case is really needed.  Users can easily encounter
the warnings anytime they use a deque instantiated with 64-bit integer
types as shown by lines 593-601 in file
tests/containers/23.deque.modifiers.cpp where the warnings originally
appeared.

It is just a warning and only for Sun C++ but I see how the explicit
conversion could potentially cause problems.  Not likely but possible.
I'll just put it on hold for now.

Brad.