On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 at 14:08, François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 02/10/21 12:29 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 21:27, François Dumont via Libstdc++ > > <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> Here is the _Safe_iterator one. > >> > >> Doing so I noticed that pointer_traits rebind for __normal_iterator was > >> wrong and added tests on it. > > Oops, thanks! > > > >> For _Safe_iterator maybe I should specialize only when instantiated with > >> __normal_iterator ? Or maybe limit to random_access_iterator_tag ? > > Yes, I think that's a good idea, maybe only for __normal_iterator<T*, > > C>. I think that should cover all the cases we actually need to > > support. > > > > And could you change the existing pointer_traits<__normal_iterator<I, > > C>> partial specialization to only be valid for > > __normal_iterator<T*,C> as well? i.e. only for __normal_iterator that > > wraps a pointer (which is true for string::iterator, vector::iterator > > etc.) > > Is the attached patch what you had in mind ?
Yes, although I don't think we need to us __make_not_void for to_pointer, because I don't think we would ever have __normal_iterator<void*, C>. I don't think it will even compile, because void* is not an iterator type, and iterator_traits<void*> is invalid (in C++20 it's constrained with is_object_v<T> and before C++20 it will just give an error, because void& is ill-formed).
