feedc0de/boost_utility
1
0
Fork 0
forked from boostorg/utility
Code Pull Requests Activity

Merged value_init fixes (extra tests + documentation) from trunk, see #3472, #3869.

Browse Source 
[SVN r63638]
This commit is contained in:
Niels Dekker
2010-07-04 21:56:44 +00:00
parent ca7db1f361
commit b273cd3914
6 changed files with 446 additions and 28 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
value_init.htm
+112 -28
View File
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
<ul>
<li><a href="#val_init"><code>template class value_initialized&lt;T&gt;</code></a></li>
<li><a href="#initialized"><code>template class initialized&lt;T&gt;</code></a></li>
<li><a href="#initialized_value"><code>initialized_value</code></a></li>
</ul>
@@ -123,6 +124,12 @@ constructed by the following declaration:
</pre>
</p>
<p>
The template <a href="#initialized"><code>initialized</code></a>
offers both value-initialization and direct-initialization.
It is especially useful as a data member type, allowing the very same object
to be either direct-initialized or value-initialized.
</p>
<p>
The <code>const</code> object <a href="#initialized_value"><code>initialized_value</code></a>
allows value-initializing a variable as follows:
<pre>
@@ -216,37 +223,65 @@ it <em>may</em> in practice still be left uninitialized, because of those
compiler issues! It's hard to make a general statement on what those issues
are like, because they depend on the compiler you are using, its version number,
and the type of object you would like to have value-initialized.
Compilers usually support value-initialization for built-in types properly.
But objects of user-defined types that involve <em>aggregates</em> may <em>in some cases</em>
be partially, or even entirely left uninitialized, when they should be value-initialized.
All compilers we have tested so far support value-initialization for arithmetic types properly.
However, various compilers may leave some types of <em>aggregates</em> uninitialized, when they
should be value-initialized. Value-initialization of objects of a pointer-to-member type may also
go wrong on various compilers.
</p>
<p>
We have encountered issues regarding value-initialization on compilers by
Microsoft, Sun, Borland, and GNU. Here is a list of bug reports on those issues:
<table summary="Compiler bug reports regarding value-initialization" border="0" cellpadding="7" cellspacing="1" >
<tr><td>
<a href="https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=100744">
Microsoft Feedback ID 100744 - Value-initialization in new-expression</a>
<br>Reported by Pavel Kuznetsov (MetaCommunications Engineering), 2005-07-28
<br>
<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111">
GCC Bug 30111 - Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members</a>
<br>Reported by Jonathan Wakely, 2006-12-07
<br>
<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33916">
GCC Bug 33916 - Default constructor fails to initialize array members</a>
<br>Reported by Michael Elizabeth Chastain, 2007-10-26
<br>
<a href="http://qc.codegear.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=51854">
Borland Report 51854 - Value-initialization: POD struct should be zero-initialized</a>
<br>Reported by Niels Dekker (LKEB, Leiden University Medical Center), 2007-09-11
<br>
</td></tr></table>
At the moment of writing, May 2010, the following reported issues regarding
value-initialization are still there in current compiler releases:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/100744">
Microsoft Visual Studio Feedback ID 100744, Value-initialization in new-expression</a>
<br>Reported by Pavel Kuznetsov (MetaCommunications Engineering), 2005
</li><li>
<a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/484295">
Microsoft Visual Studio Feedback ID 484295, VC++ does not value-initialize members of derived classes without user-declared constructor</a>
<br>Reported by Sylvester Hesp, 2009
</li><li>
<a href="https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/499606">
Microsoft Visual Studio Feedback ID 499606, Presence of copy constructor breaks member class initialization</a>
<br>Reported by Alex Vakulenko, 2009
</li><li>
<a href="http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=83751">
Embarcadero/C++Builder Report 83751, Value-initialization: arrays should have each element value-initialized</a>
<br>Reported by Niels Dekker (LKEB), 2010
</li><li>
<a href="http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=83851">
Embarcadero/C++Builder Report 83851, Value-initialized temporary triggers internal backend error C1798</a>
<br>Reported by Niels Dekker, 2010
</li><li>
<a href="http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=84279">
Embarcadero/C++Builder Report 84279, Internal compiler error (F1004), value-initializing member function pointer by "new T()"</a>
<br>Reported by Niels Dekker, 2010
</li><li>
Sun CR 6947016, Sun 5.10 may fail to value-initialize an object of a non-POD aggregate.
<br>Reported to Steve Clamage by Niels Dekker, 2010
</li><li>
IBM's XL V10.1 and V11.1 may fail to value-initialize a temporary of a non-POD aggregate.
<br>Reported to Michael Wong by Niels Dekker, 2010
</li><li>
Intel support issue 589832, Attempt to value-initialize pointer-to-member triggers internal error
on Intel 11.1.
<br>Reported by John Maddock, 2010
</li>
</ul>
Note that all known GCC issues regarding value-initialization are
fixed with GCC version 4.4, including
<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111">GCC Bug 30111</a>.
Clang also has completely implemented value-initialization, as far as we know,
now that <a href="http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7139">Clang Bug 7139</a> is fixed.
</p><p>
New versions of <code>value_initialized</code>
(Boost release version 1.35 or higher)
offer a workaround to these issues: <code>value_initialized</code> will now clear
its internal data, prior to constructing the object that it contains.
offer a workaround to these issues: <code>value_initialized</code> may now clear
its internal data, prior to constructing the object that it contains. It will do
so for those compilers that need to have such a workaround, based on the
<a href="../config/doc/html/boost_config/boost_macro_reference.html#boost_config.boost_macro_reference.macros_that_describe_defects"
>compiler defect macro</a> BOOST_NO_COMPLETE_VALUE_INITIALIZATION.
</p>
<h2><a name="types"></a>Types and objects</h2>
@@ -340,6 +375,52 @@ the wrapped object is always performed with the <code>get()</code> idiom:</p>
<pre>value_initialized&lt;int&gt; x ;<br>get(x) = 1 ; // OK<br><br>value_initialized&lt;int const&gt; cx ;<br>get(x) = 1 ; // ERROR: Cannot modify a const object<br><br>value_initialized&lt;int&gt; const x_c ;<br>get(x_c) = 1 ; // ERROR: Cannot modify a const object<br><br>value_initialized&lt;int const&gt; const cx_c ;<br>get(cx_c) = 1 ; // ERROR: Cannot modify a const object<br></pre>
<h2><a name="initialized"><code>template class initialized&lt;T&gt;</code></a></h2>
<pre>namespace boost {<br><br>template&lt;class T&gt;<br>class initialized<br>{
<br> public :
<br> initialized() : x() {}
<br> explicit initialized(T const &amp; arg) : x(arg) {}
<br> operator T const &amp;() const;
<br> operator T&amp;();
<br> T const &amp;data() const;
<br> T&amp; data();
<br> void swap( value_initialized&lt;T&gt;&amp; );
<br>
<br> private :
<br> <i>unspecified</i> x ;
<br>} ;
<br>
<br>template&lt;class T&gt;
<br>T const&amp; get ( initialized&lt;T&gt; const&amp; x );
<br>
<br>template&lt;class T&gt;
<br>T&amp; get ( initialized&lt;T&gt;&amp; x );
<br>
<br>} // namespace boost
<br></pre>
The template class <code>boost::initialized&lt;T&gt;</code> supports both value-initialization
and direct-initialization, so its interface is a superset of the interface
of <code>value_initialized&lt;T&gt;</code>: Its default-constructor
value-initializes the wrapped object just like the default-constructor of
<code>value_initialized&lt;T&gt;</code>, but <code>boost::initialized&lt;T&gt;</code>
also offers an extra <code>explicit</code>
constructor, which direct-initializes the wrapped object by the specified value.
<p>
<code>initialized&lt;T&gt;</code> is especially useful when the wrapped
object must be either value-initialized or direct-initialized, depending on
runtime conditions. For example, <code>initialized&lt;T&gt;</code> could
hold the value of a data member that may be value-initialized by some
constructors, and direct-initialized by others.
On the other hand, if it is known beforehand that the
object must <i>always</i> be value-initialized, <code>value_initialized&lt;T&gt;</code>
may be preferable. And if the object must always be
direct-initialized, none of the two wrappers really needs to be used.
</p>
<h2><a name="initialized_value"><code>initialized_value</code></a></h2>
<pre>
@@ -399,6 +480,9 @@ Special thanks to Bj&ouml;rn Karlsson who carefully edited and completed this do
<p>value_initialized was reimplemented by Fernando Cacciola and Niels Dekker
for Boost release version 1.35 (2008), offering a workaround to various compiler issues.
</p>
<p><code>boost::initialized</code> was very much inspired by feedback from Edward Diener and
Jeffrey Hellrung.
</p>
<p>initialized_value was written by Niels Dekker, and added to Boost release version 1.36 (2008).
</p>
<p>Developed by <a href="mailto:fernando_cacciola@hotmail.com">Fernando Cacciola</a>,
@@ -407,9 +491,9 @@ for Boost release version 1.35 (2008), offering a workaround to various compiler
</p>
<hr>
<p>Revised 03 October 2009</p>
<p>Revised 30 May 2010</p>
<p>&copy; Copyright Fernando Cacciola, 2002, 2009.</p>
<p>&copy; Copyright Fernando Cacciola, 2002 - 2010.</p>
<p>Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. See
<a href="http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt">www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt</a></p>