Subject: Re: [boost] [core/noncopyable][test/boost::unit_test::singleton] massive test failures
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-21 11:37:47
On 21/08/2014 11:54 a.m., Peter Dimov wrote:
> Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
>> This is not so funny once you accept that `TriviallyCopyable` does not
>> imply `Copyable`. The apparent contradiction that `noncopyable` is
>> `TriviallyCopyable` is not such, according to the language rules.
> The fact that a class can be trivially copyable but not copyable is
> precisely what's funny. If you don't 'accept' that, there's nothing left
> to laugh at.
I guess we are saying the same thing.
> And, while I can grudgingly accept the argument that the class deriving
> from noncopyable needs to decide whether to be trivially constructible
> or not, in this case, it is not that class that makes the decision. All
> classes deriving from noncopyable weren't trivially copyable with the
> old implementation and are now trivially copyable.
True, it is a breaking change for classes relying on an implementation
provided default constructor. I'm having a hard time deciding where this
matters outside of `is_trivially_default_constructible`. The only case I
could think of is full initialization of a const object, but it fails in
those cases now as it was failing before (hopefully this will change one
>> This is off-topic anyway.
> It isn't. We're discussing whether noncopyable is or should be trivially
> copyable, and the decision on that defect report determines whether the
> current implementation is.
As I see it, since trivially copyable does not imply copyable, it is
irrelevant for `noncopyable`. Even when it sounds funny.
> Incidentally, the compilers I tried give 0 for is_trivial and
> is_trivially_copyable. They don't seem enlightened.
Only libc++ implements `is_trivially_copyable` (msvc pretends to but
does a bad bad thing). See
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/BXhRw5DN8RhnNPw6 for a working example.
>> I disagree. The new implementation does not interfere with things
>> other than copyability.
> "Does not interfere" is not the same as "is better than".
I see "does not interfere" as "better than", because it means I don't
have to go and implement my own version that does only what it's
supposed to do.
Whether this matters, I don't know. I wouldn't use `noncopyable` in
C++11 code, and I stopped using it in C++03 code a long time ago because
it would result in "error: undefined reference for blablabla" with
absolutely no context on whether the copy attempt happens (not entirely
`noncopyable`'s fault, but enough to make it useless for me).
-- Agustín K-ballo Bergé.- http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk