Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Heads-up!
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-29 18:52:47
Ð¿Ð½, 29 Ð°Ð¿Ñ. 2019 Ð³. Ð² 21:08, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>:
> On 4/29/19 12:04 PM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
> > Ð¿Ð½, 29 Ð°Ð¿Ñ. 2019 Ð³. Ð² 20:44, Steven Watanabe via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> >> On 4/29/19 11:30 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
> >>> I've merged a very cool optimization by Nikita Kniazev into the master
> >>> branch. From now on boost::variant does pointer stealing for recursive
> >>> variants.
> >>> This significantly improves the performance of the variants move constructors.
> >>> However if you use a variant variable after the std::move for anything
> >>> except destruction and assignment then you're getting an UB. Beware!
> >> boost::variant goes to great lengths to prevent
> >> exactly this situation. You just broke it. This
> >> change is unacceptable. Please revert it. This
> >> optimization can be used iff. you have a way to
> >> construct a valid object in the rhs.
> > You can restore the old slow pre-rvalue era behavior by defining
> > BOOST_VARIANT_NO_RECURSIVE_WRAPPER_POINTER_STEALING.
> That doesn't make it okay. Look, this optimization
> would be fine with a different variant, one that doesn't
> provide the never-empty guarantee. That isn't boost::variant.
>From the theoretical point of view I'm on your side. boost::variant is
something that is never-empty.
However, from the practical point of view :
* noexcept(false) move constructor degrades performance of variant
* move constructor that does a dynamic memory allocation is a surprise
for the majority of users
>From the teachers point of view... Boost is a collection of high
quality libraries and many people look into the source codes to learn
new tricks and correct approaches for solving problems.
noexcept(false) move constructor that implicitly dynamically allocates
is something that I would not prefer to show anyone.
>From the C++ Standard Library point of view... Well, you can only
assign new value or destroy a moved away variable. Everything is fine
3 against 1.
I see a way to restore the theoretical beauty of the variant. We can
just remove the empty() member function or force it to always return
false. So that variant is still never empty, but using a variant after
move is an UB.
-- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk