| Message ID | 20140909172900.GE22778@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 09/09/2014 19:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 14/08/14 21:22 +0200, François Dumont wrote: >> I am preparing a patch for profile mode so I will submit modification >> for this mode with this big patch. > > btw, François, for profile mode I think we should just do something > like this patch. > > I feel quite strongly that if using Debug Mode or Profile Mode makes > your program run out of memory where it wouldn't usually fail, then > terminating is reasonable. The point of Profile Mode is not to test > abnormal execution of your program because that won't give you useful > profile information for the normal case. > > It's more important for the noexcept specification to be consistent > across normal/debug/profile modes than for profile mode to fail > gracefully via bad_alloc in out-of-memory scenarios. > Sure, no problem. In the patch I am preparing for profile mode failure in allocation will just mean that the involved container won't be profiled so that I can add noexcept wherever it is needed for consistency with normal mode. I hope to be able to submit this patch in a week or two. François
On 09/09/14 23:03 +0200, François Dumont wrote: >On 09/09/2014 19:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>On 14/08/14 21:22 +0200, François Dumont wrote: >>>I am preparing a patch for profile mode so I will submit >>>modification for this mode with this big patch. >> >>btw, François, for profile mode I think we should just do something >>like this patch. >> >>I feel quite strongly that if using Debug Mode or Profile Mode makes >>your program run out of memory where it wouldn't usually fail, then >>terminating is reasonable. The point of Profile Mode is not to test >>abnormal execution of your program because that won't give you useful >>profile information for the normal case. >> >>It's more important for the noexcept specification to be consistent >>across normal/debug/profile modes than for profile mode to fail >>gracefully via bad_alloc in out-of-memory scenarios. >> > Sure, no problem. In the patch I am preparing for profile mode >failure in allocation will just mean that the involved container won't >be profiled so that I can add noexcept wherever it is needed for >consistency with normal mode. I hope to be able to submit this patch >in a week or two. Great - thanks for working on it.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/profile/unordered_base.h b/libstdc++-v3/include/profile/unordered_base.h index 283f87c..cd9db7e 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/profile/unordered_base.h +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/profile/unordered_base.h @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ namespace __profile using __unique_keys = std::integral_constant<bool, _Unique_keys>; protected: - _Unordered_profile() + _Unordered_profile() noexcept { auto& __uc = _M_conjure(); __profcxx_hashtable_construct(&__uc, __uc.bucket_count()); @@ -162,10 +162,10 @@ namespace __profile } _Unordered_profile(const _Unordered_profile&) : _Unordered_profile() { } - _Unordered_profile(_Unordered_profile&&) + _Unordered_profile(_Unordered_profile&&) noexcept : _Unordered_profile() { } - ~_Unordered_profile() noexcept + ~_Unordered_profile() { auto& __uc = _M_conjure(); __profcxx_hashtable_destruct(&__uc, __uc.bucket_count(), __uc.size());