Add policy check that excludes unsequenced policies

It's technically UB for the callable in an unsequenced policy to acquire a lock so we add static_assert()s to catch potential user error.
This commit is contained in:
Christian Mazakas
2023-05-01 11:04:50 -07:00
parent 615ce1e9b6
commit c52ad849ea
3 changed files with 17 additions and 4 deletions

View File

@@ -37,6 +37,14 @@
boost::unordered::detail::is_invocable<F, value_type const&>::value, \
"The provided Callable must be invocable with `value_type const&`");
#define BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_EXEC_POLICY(P) \
static_assert(!std::is_base_of<std::execution::parallel_unsequenced_policy, \
ExecPolicy>::value, \
"ExecPolicy must be sequenced."); \
static_assert( \
!std::is_base_of<std::execution::unsequenced_policy, ExecPolicy>::value, \
"ExecPolicy must be sequenced.");
#define BOOST_UNORDERED_COMMA ,
#define BOOST_UNORDERED_LAST_ARG(Arg, Args) \
@@ -357,6 +365,7 @@ namespace boost {
visit_all(ExecPolicy p, F f)
{
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_INVOCABLE(F)
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_EXEC_POLICY(ExecPolicy)
table_.visit_all(p, f);
}
@@ -367,6 +376,7 @@ namespace boost {
visit_all(ExecPolicy p, F f) const
{
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_CONST_INVOCABLE(F)
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_EXEC_POLICY(ExecPolicy)
table_.visit_all(p, f);
}
@@ -377,6 +387,7 @@ namespace boost {
cvisit_all(ExecPolicy p, F f) const
{
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_CONST_INVOCABLE(F)
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_EXEC_POLICY(ExecPolicy)
table_.cvisit_all(p, f);
}
#endif
@@ -663,6 +674,8 @@ namespace boost {
void>::type
erase_if(ExecPolicy p, F f)
{
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_EXEC_POLICY(ExecPolicy)
BOOST_UNORDERED_STATIC_ASSERT_EXEC_POLICY(ExecPolicy)
table_.erase_if(p, f);
}
#endif