On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 21:10, François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> AFAICT I've never got proper validation for this small patch.
>
> Is it ok to commit ?
>
Yes, OK for trunk, thanks.
> Thanks
>
>
> On 14/04/2025 22:25, François Dumont wrote:
>
>
> On 14/04/2025 08:29, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 12:13 PM François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11/04/2025 08:36, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 10:47 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/04/25 22:36 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
>>> >After running the test with -fno-exceptions option we rather need this
>>> >patch.
>>> >
>>> >Ok to commit ?
>>> >
>>> >François
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On 10/04/2025 21:08, François Dumont wrote:
>>> >>Hi
>>> >>
>>> >> No problem detected now that we really test std::deque
>>> >>shrink_to_fit implementation.
>>> >>
>>> >> libstdc++: Add std::deque<>::shrink_to_fit test
>>> >>
>>> >> The existing test is currently testing std::vector. Make it test
>>> >>std::deque.
>>> >>
>>> >> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>> >>
>>> >> *
>>> >>testsuite/23_containers/deque/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc: Adapt test
>>> >> to check std::deque shrink_to_fit method.
>>> >>
>>> >>Tested under Linux x64.
>>> >>
>>> >>Ok to commit ?
>>> >>
>>> >>François
>>>
>>> >diff --git
>>> a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc
>>> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc
>>> >index 7cb67079214..9c8b3a926e8 100644
>>> >---
>>> a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc
>>> >+++
>>> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc
>>> >@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
>>> > // { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
>>> >+// { dg-add-options no_pch }
>>>
>>> Tests using replacement_memory_operators.h need:
>>>
>>> // { dg-require-effective-target std_allocator_new }
>>> // { dg-xfail-run-if "AIX operator new" { powerpc-ibm-aix* } }
>>>
>>> See e.g. 23_containers/unordered_set/96088.cc
>>>
>> Thanks, I new I needed to add something like that but then forgot to
>> amend my test.
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> > // 2010-01-08 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>
>>> >
>>> >@@ -19,18 +20,39 @@
>>> > // with this library; see the file COPYING3. If not see
>>> > // <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>>> >
>>> >-#include <vector>
>>> >+#define _GLIBCXX_DEQUE_BUF_SIZE sizeof(int) * 3
>>>
>>> Couldn't the test just create more elements, instead of modifying the
>>> internals? We should test it using the default parameters, no?
>>>
>> Sounds better indeed, done using std::__deque_buf_size extension.
>>
>>
>> In from_range test I have used a class that contains some padding,
>> to be able to fill the deque buffer, while still test with few elements,
>>
>> struct EightInBuf
>>
>> {
>> EightInBuf(int x) : elems{x}
>> { }
>>
>> private:
>> int elems[512 / (sizeof(int) * 8)];
>>
>> friend constexpr bool operator==(EightInBuf const& lhs, int rhs)
>> { return lhs.elems[0] == rhs; }
>> };
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a nice alternative even if you are still relying on the 512
>> implementation detail hidden by _GLIBCXX_DEQUE_BUF_SIZE macro.
>>
>> This is why I preferred to use__deque_buf_size.
>>
> When using _GLIBCXX_DEBUG this function will be defined inside
> std::__cxx1998 namespace, not in the std directly.
> There is a macro _GLIBCXX_STD_C that can be used to refer to it, but it
> works only inside std namespace.
>
> Fixed in this new version.
>
> Ok to commit ?
>
> François
>
>
