===================================================================
@@ -918,15 +918,13 @@
using __ebo_extract_key = _Hashtable_ebo_helper<0, _ExtractKey>;
using __ebo_hash = _Hashtable_ebo_helper<1, _Hash>;
- public:
- // We need the default constructor for the local iterators.
- _Hash_code_base() = default;
-
protected:
typedef void* __hash_code;
typedef _Hash_node<_Value, false> __node_type;
- protected:
+ // We need the default constructor for the local iterators.
+ _Hash_code_base() = default;
+
_Hash_code_base(const _ExtractKey& __ex, const _H1&, const _H2&,
const _Hash& __h)
: __ebo_extract_key(__ex), __ebo_hash(__h) { }
@@ -1004,13 +1002,13 @@
hash_function() const
{ return _M_h1(); }
- // We need the default constructor for the local iterators.
- _Hash_code_base() = default;
-
protected:
typedef std::size_t __hash_code;
typedef _Hash_node<_Value, false> __node_type;
+ // We need the default constructor for the local iterators.
+ _Hash_code_base() = default;
+
_Hash_code_base(const _ExtractKey& __ex,
const _H1& __h1, const _H2& __h2,
const _Default_ranged_hash&)
===================================================================
@@ -266,7 +266,10 @@
// __hash_code_base above to compute node bucket index so it has to be
// default constructible.
static_assert(__if_hash_not_cached<
- is_default_constructible<__hash_code_base>>::value,
+ is_default_constructible<
+ // We use _Hashtable_ebo_helper to access the protected
+ // default constructor.
+ __detail::_Hashtable_ebo_helper<0, __hash_code_base>>>::value,
"Cache the hash code or make functors involved in hash code"
" and bucket index computation default constructible");
Committed then. 2013-02-13 François Dumont <fdumont@gcc.gnu.org> * include/bits/hashtable_policy.h (_Hash_code_base): Restore default constructor protected. * include/bits/hashtable.h: static assert that _Hash_code_base has a default constructor available through inheritance. On 02/13/2013 12:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 13 February 2013 10:19, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> On 02/12/2013 09:54 PM, François Dumont wrote: >>> Of course this is not mandatory but I think _Hash_code_base would be >>> cleaner this way only exposing as public what is required by C++11. It can >>> also wait for 4.9. >> I like it. Thanks Francois. If Jon has no objections over the next day or >> so, please go ahead. > No objection, I agree it's suitable for 4.8 as it's refining my > regression fix, but I don't think it really makes any difference. > There is nothing required by C++11 for _Hash_code_base's constructors > because it's an implementation detail, and the only way a user can > tell the difference between a public and protected constructor is > trying to construct _Hash_code_base directly, which is obviously > unsupported. >