Visual C++ is warning that memory can't be tracked for allocators whose
pointer types aren't actually pointers, which is a correct warning but
not relevant for our concerns, and is caused by the unit tests, not the
container implementation.
Currently just storing the value without a const. Can do better with
C++11 constructors, so maybe should do that, and cast away const on
compilers without support.
Another problem is that std::allocator<const int> doesn't compile for
libstdc++ (and potentially other standard libraries), so
boost::unordered_set<const int> can't compile. I'm not sure if I should
work around that, as it means changing the type of the container
(i.e. to boost::unordered_set<const int,... , std::allocator<int>>).
The rebind mechanism doesn't work for templates with multiple template
parameters on old versions of GCC. But allocators written for that
compiler will have an explicit rebind, so that should be acceptable.
This time for a more limited range of values so that equal values turn
up more often. This is a bit shoddy, but seems like the best way to
improve the existing tests without too much effort.
This was causing the hash function to be different to the equality
function. For some reason this resulted in a lot of windows test
failures, but none on linux or os x. I'm a bit confused and worried
about that.
So currently on one intel tester find_tests is failing the 'pos !=
x.end()' test, but not the 'const_pos != x_const.end()' test for
unordered_set (and possibly others, the test results are truncated). I'm
a bit stumped as to why this should be, as for unordered_set the const
and non-const versions are basically the exact same code. See if
changing the order makes any difference to what fails.
The hash and key equality functions were assigned before allocating new
buckets. If that allocation failed, then the existing elements would be
left in place - so if accessed after the exception they could be in the
wrong buckets or equivalent elements could be incorrectly grouped
together.
It seems my defect report was accepted at some point, and they tweaked
the requirements involving bucket counts. This also makes it possible to
have a bucket count of 0, which I think wasn't allowed in the past. I
don't think I'll change this implementation to do so, but I'd like to be
able to run these tests against standard implementations, so I'm
starting to take that into account.
I believe these changes were made after the C++14 standard, but I've
always been tracking the draft standards, so that doesn't really matter.
Oops, I merged the wrong 'develop' branch into master. Luckily, there's
not much of a difference, so I'm resolving the merge here, and will
merge into master soon.
The intel-linux failures I'm getting now are odd. This find test is
failing for iterator, but not const_iterator. So maybe it's a problem
with the iterator object. The failures I was getting before have
disappeared, so I'm not sure about that.
Now the intel-linux tester that was failing for erase_tests is passing,
but has started failing for find_tests instead. Oddly the test for
non-const find is failing, but the const find is fine - this doesn't
make much sense as they should be the same. Not sure, but it suggests
the problem might be in the way iterators are handled, rather than the
data structure?
Checking the iterators before checking that the keys are equal in order
to tell which part of the test is failing.
For some reason the unordered test results are not showing up any more.
This is odd, as when I try locally they do run. I don't know why this
is, but it's possible that it's because there isn't an actual project in
the test directory, so try adding one.
