Without would make sense to me, because whenever I wrote an
identifier with _ I felt like I was presenting the user with
a name that they shouldn't know about.
A pedantic question: Can I also fix the line below, or do
you prefer to be strict about one semantic change per commit?
On 5/15/25 2:40 PM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
No strong preference, but Ville's argument sounds reasonable.
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 12:25 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mild preference against; use the names from the standard, not the
implementation, in such diagnostics.
to 15. toukok. 2025 klo 13.20 Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>
kirjoitti:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 11:14, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 20:18, Luc Grosheintz <luc.groshei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The standard states that the IndexType must be a signed or unsigned
integer. This mandate was implemented using `std::is_integral_v`.
Which
also includes (among others) char and bool, which neither signed nor
unsigned integers.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/std/mdspan: Implement the mandate for extents as
signed or unsigned integer and not any interal type.
*
testsuite/23_containers/mdspan/extents/class_mandates_neg.cc: Check
that extents<char,...> and extents<bool,...> are invalid.
* testsuite/23_containers/mdspan/extents/misc.cc: Update
tests to avoid `char` and `bool` as IndexType.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/mdspan | 3 ++-
.../23_containers/mdspan/extents/class_mandates_neg.cc | 10
+++++++---
.../testsuite/23_containers/mdspan/extents/misc.cc | 8 ++++----
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mdspan
b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mdspan
index aee96dda7cd..22509d9c8f4 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mdspan
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mdspan
@@ -163,7 +163,8 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
template<typename _IndexType, size_t... _Extents>
class extents
{
- static_assert(is_integral_v<_IndexType>, "_IndexType must be
integral.");
+ static_assert(__is_standard_integer<_IndexType>::value,
+ "_IndexType must be a signed or unsigned
integer.");
GCC's diagnostics never end with a full stop (aka period), and we
follow that convention for our static assertions.
So I'll remove the '.' at the end of the string literal, and then push
this to trunk.
static_assert(
(__mdspan::__valid_static_extent<_Extents, _IndexType> &&
...),
"Extents must either be dynamic or representable as
_IndexType");
I've just noticed that this static_assert refers to "Extents" without
the leading underscore, but "_IndexType" with a leading underscore.
I think it's OK to omit the leading underscore, it might be a bit more
user-friendly and I don't think anybody will be confused by the fact
it's not identical to the real template parameter. But we should
either do it consistently for _Extents and _IndexType or for neither
of them.
Anybody want to argue for or against underscores?
