[Boost-commit] svn:boost r56848 - sandbox/committee/rvalue_ref

Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r56848 - sandbox/committee/rvalue_ref
From: dave_at_[hidden]
Date: 2009-10-14 16:56:10

Author: dave
Date: 2009-10-14 16:56:10 EDT (Wed, 14 Oct 2009)
New Revision: 56848
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/56848

Log:
initial checkin

Added:
   sandbox/committee/rvalue_ref/N2983-throwing-move.rst   (contents, props changed)

Added: sandbox/committee/rvalue_ref/N2983-throwing-move.rst
==============================================================================
--- (empty file)
+++ sandbox/committee/rvalue_ref/N2983-throwing-move.rst	2009-10-14 16:56:10 EDT (Wed, 14 Oct 2009)
@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+=====================================
+ Allowing Move Constructors to Throw
+=====================================
+
+:Author: David Abrahams, Rani Sharoni
+:Contact: dave_at_[hidden], ranis_at_[hidden]
+:organization: `BoostPro Computing`_, Microsoft
+:date: 2009-10-14
+
+:Number: D2983=09-0173
+
+.. _`BoostPro Computing`: http://www.boostpro.com
+
+.. contents:: index
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+In N2855_, Doug Gregor and Dave Abrahams discussed a problematic
+interaction between move constructors, templates, and certain standard
+library member functions.  To date, attempts to solve the problem
+(including N2855_ itself) have taken one basic approach: *ban throwing
+move constructors, and be sure never to generate one*.  
+
+Consider, for a moment, the actual magnitude of the problem we're
+addressing: it's a backward-compatibility/code evolution issue that
+only arises when *all* these conditions are satisfied:
+
+* An existing operation today gives the strong guarantee
+* The operation is being *move-enabled* (altered to use move operations)
+* An existing type that the operation manipulates acquires a move constructor
+* That move constructor can throw
+* The particular move-enabled operation can only offer the basic
+  guarantee if a move constructor throws [#x]_
+
+In light of the extremely narrow set of circumstances under which the
+problem can arise, it seems rather heavy-handed to ban throwing move
+constructors altogether:
+
+* It can be a hard rule for users to follow.
+
+* Generating move constructors by default as proposed in N2904_
+  requires a carefully-engineered set of rules about when such a
+  default can be generated.
+ 
+* It hobbles the optimization potential of move constructors, because
+  efficient move constructors that might throw (but almost never will)
+  can't be generated or written.
+
+* It adds another "Gotcha" that people have to worry about.
+
+* It places tight restrictions on the order of code evolution: one
+  cannot move-enable a class until all its sub-objects have been
+  move-enabled.
+
+* It forces the weakening of class invariants for some move-enabled
+  classes: if move construction can throw, it must be possible to
+  leave the source object in a resource-less state.  
+
+* In some cases class maintainers may need to choose between
+  move-enabling their class and maintaining its current guarantees to
+  users.  For example, dinkumware's list implementation currently
+  derives QOI benefits from having no resource-less state—“begin” and
+  “end” iterators maintain their relationships even after lists are
+  swapped.  If throwing move constructors are banned, that would no
+  longer be possible.
+
+* When it is necessary to manually write a move constructor for a
+  templated class, it would in many cases require either expert-level
+  metaprogramming skill or the addition of a language feature, just
+  for move constructors, whose only purpose is in solving this
+  particular problem. [#attribute]_
+
+.. _N2904: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2904.pdf
+
+Fortunately, there is a better way.  Instead of imposing this burden
+on every class author, we can deal with the issue more selectively in
+the operation being move-enabled.  There, we know whether a throwing
+move can disturb existing guarantees.  We propose that instead of
+using ``std::move(x)`` in those cases, thus granting permission for the
+compiler to use *any* available move constructor, maintainers of these
+particular operations should use ``std::nothrow_move(x)``, which only
+grants permission to use non-throwing move constructors.  Unless ``x``
+is known to have a nonthrowing move constructor, the operation would
+fall back to copying ``x``, just as though ``x`` had never acquired a move
+constructor at all.
+
+For example, ``std::pair``\ 's move constructor, were it to be written
+out manually, could remain as it was before this issue was
+discovered::
+
+    template <class First2, Second2>
+    pair( pair<First2,Second2>&& rhs )
+      : first( move(rhs.first) ), 
+        second( move(rhs.second) )
+    {}
+
+However, ``std::vector::reserve`` would be move-enabled this way:
+
+.. parsed-literal:
+
+  void reserve(size_type n)
+  {
+      if (n > this->capacity())
+      {
+          pointer new_begin = this->allocate( n );
+          size_type s = this->size(), i = 0;
+          try
+          {
+              for (;i < s; ++i)
+                   new ((void*)(new_begin + i)) value_type( **nothrow_move(** (\*this)[i]) **)** );
+          }
+          catch(...)
+          {
+              for (;i > 0; --i)                 // clean up new elements
+                 (new_begin + i)->~value_type();
+
+              this->deallocate( new_begin );    // release storage
+              throw;
+          }
+          // -------- irreversible mutation starts here -----------
+          this->deallocate( this->begin_ );
+          this->begin_ = new_begin;
+          this->end_ = new_begin + s;
+          this->cap_ = new_begin + n;
+      }
+  }
+
+
+We stress again that the use of ``nothrow_move`` as opposed to ``move``
+would only be necessary under an *extremely* limited set of
+circumstances.  In particular, it would never be required in new code,
+which could simply give a *conditional* strong guarantee, e.g. “if an
+exception is thrown other than by ``T``\ 's move constructor, there are
+no effects.”
+
+Implementing ``nothrow_move``
+=============================
+
+One reasonable implementation of ``std::nothrow_move`` might be::
+
+  template <class T>
+  typename enable_if<has_nothrow_move_constructor<T>, T&&>::type 
+  nothrow_move(T& x)
+  {
+      return std::move(x);
+  }
+  
+  template <class T>
+  typename disable_if<has_nothrow_move_constructor<T>, T&>::type 
+  nothrow_move(T& x)
+  {
+      return x;
+  }
+
+However, that begs the question of how
+``has_nothrow_move_constructor<T>`` might be implemented.  We propose
+that ``has_nothrow_move_constructor<T>`` be a conservative trait very
+much like ``has_nothrow_copy_constructor<T>`` from the current working
+draft; it would be identical to the proposed
+``is_nothrow_constructible<T,T&&>`` from N2953_.  In other words, it is
+*allowed* to return ``false`` even when the proper result is ``true``.
+
+An Optimization Hint
+====================
+
+To help the library deduce the correct result for these traits, we
+propose to add a new kind of exception-specification, spelled:
+
+.. parsed-literal::
+
+   throw( *integral constant expression* )
+
+The only impact of such an exception-specification is this: if a
+function decorated with `throw(false)` throws an exception, the
+behavior is undefined. [#no-diagnostic]_ That effect is sufficient to
+allow these *xxx*\ ``_nothrow_``\ *xxx* traits to report ``true`` for
+any operation decorated with `throw(false)`.  Class maintainers could
+label their move constructors `throw(false)` to indicate non-throwing
+behavior, and the library is permitted to take advantage of that
+labelling if it can be detected (via “compiler magic”).
+
+Note that the usefulness of `throw(false)` as an optimization hint
+goes way beyond the narrow case introduced by N2855_.  In fact, it
+goes beyond move construction: when the compiler can detect
+non-throwing operations with certainty, it can optimize away a great
+deal of code and/or data that is devoted to exception handling.  Some
+compilers already do that for `throw()` specifications, but since
+those incur the overhead of an implicit try/catch block to handle
+unexpected exceptions, the benefits are limited.
+
+The advantage of the integral constant expression parameter is that
+one can easily offer accurate hints in templated move constructors.
+For example, `std::pair`\ 's converting move constructor could be
+written as follows:
+
+.. parsed-literal::
+
+    template <class First2, Second2>
+    pair( pair<First2,Second2>&& rhs ) 
+          **throw( !is_nothrow_constructible<First,First2&&>::value
+                 || !is_nothrow_constructible<Second,Second2&&>::value )** [#is_nothrow_constructible]_
+      : first( move(rhs.first) ), 
+        second( move(rhs.second) )
+    {}
+
+Although the above is reminiscent of the `enable_if` clause that would
+be *required* if there is a ban on throwing move constructors, the
+exception specification above is entirely optional; its presence or
+absence doesn't affect the correctness of a move constructor.
+
+Interactions with Other Proposals
+=================================
+
+The generation of default move constructors, first proposed by Bjarne
+Stroustrup in N2904_, and again by Bjarne Stroustrup and Lawrence
+Crowl in N2953_, is harmonious with our proposal.  For example, since
+throwing move constructors are allowed, default move constructors will
+be generated in more cases, with performance benefits if *any*
+subobjects have been move-enabled.
+
+As a matter of QOI, a default move constructor would probably gain an
+exception specification whose boolean constant parameter is computed
+from the results of has_nothrow_move on all subobjects, but, being a
+matter of QOI, that doesn't have any effect on standard text.
+
+The proposed ``[[nothrow]]`` attribute is just a less-powerful version
+of this feature.  In particular, it can't express the hint shown for
+`pair`\ 's move constructor above.  We suggest it be dropped.
+
+Existing Practice
+=================
+
+The Microsoft compiler has always treated empty
+exception-specifications as though they have the same meaning we
+propose for `throw(false)`.  That is, Microsoft omits the
+standard-mandated runtime behavior if the function throws, and it
+performs optimizations based on the assumption that the function
+doesn't throw.  This interpretation of `throw()` has proven to be
+successful in practice and is regarded by many as superior to the one
+in the standard.  Standardizing `throw(false)` gives everyone access
+to this optimization tool.
+
+Proposed Changes to Standard Wording
+====================================
+
+.. Rani fills in this part
+
+
+-------
+
+.. [#attribute] In Frankfurt, Dave proposed that we use the attribute
+   syntax ``[[moves(subobj1,subobj2)]]`` for this purpose.  Aside from
+   being controversial, it's a wart regardless of the syntax used,
+   adding a whole new mechanism just for move constructors but useless
+   elsewhere.
+
+.. _N2855: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2855.html
+
+.. _N2953: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2953.html
+
+.. [#x] Many move-enabled operations can give the strong guarantee
+   regardless of whether move construction throws.  One example is
+   ``std::list<T>::push_back``.  This issue affects only the narrow
+   subset of operations that need to make *multiple* explicit moves
+   from locations observable by the caller.
+
+.. [#no-diagnostic] In particular, we are not proposing to mandate
+   static checking: a `throw(false)` function can call a `throw(true)`
+   function without causing the program to become ill-formed or
+   generating a diagnostic.  Generating a diagnostic in such cases
+   can, of course, be implemented by any compiler as a matter of QOI.
+
+.. [#is_nothrow_constructible] See N2953_ for a definition of
+   `is_nothrow_constructible`.