分类：
2008-10-13 16:12:53
上层连接：
随便挑点：
Section: 20.1.5 , 23.1 Status: Submitter: Andy Sawyer Date: 21 Oct 1999
Must the value returned by max_size() be unchanged from call to call?
Must the value returned from max_size() be meaningful?
Possible meanings identified in lib-6827:
1) The largest container the implementation can support given "best case" conditions - i.e. assume the run-time platform is "configured to the max", and no overhead from the program itself. This may possibly be determined at the point the library is written, but certainly no later than compile time.
2) The largest container the program could create, given "best case" conditions - i.e. same platform assumptions as (1), but take into account any overhead for executing the program itself. (or, roughly "storage=storage-sizeof(program)"). This does NOT include any resource allocated by the program. This may (or may not) be determinable at compile time.
3) The largest container the current execution of the program could create, given knowledge of the actual run-time platform, but again, not taking into account any currently allocated resource. This is probably best determined at program start-up.
4) The largest container the current execution program could create at the point max_size() is called (or more correctly at the point max_size() returns :-), given it's current environment (i.e. taking into account the actual currently available resources). This, obviously, has to be determined dynamically each time max_size() is called.
Proposed resolution:
Change 20.1.5 table 32 max_size() wording from:
the largest value that can meaningfully be passed to X::allocate
to:
the value of the largest constant expression (5.19 ) that could ever meaningfully be passed to X::allocate
Change 23.1 table 65 max_size() wording from:
size() of the largest possible container.
to:
the value of the largest constant expression (5.19 ) that could ever meaningfully be returned by X::size().
[Kona: The LWG informally discussed this and asked Andy Sawyer to submit an issue.]
[Tokyo: The LWG believes (1) above is the intended meaning.]
[Post-Tokyo: Beman Dawes supplied the above resolution at the request of the LWG. 21.3.3 was not changed because it references max_size() in 23.1. The term "compile-time" was avoided because it is not defined anywhere in the standard (even though it is used several places in the library clauses).]
[Copenhagen: Exactly what max_size means is still unclear. It may have a different meaning as a container member function than as an allocator member function. For the latter, it is probably best thought of as an architectural limit. Nathan will provide new wording.]
Section: 18.2.1 Status: Submitter: Stephen Cleary Date: 21 Dec 1999
In some places in this section, the terms "fundamental types" and "scalar types" are used when the term "arithmetic types" is intended. The current usage is incorrect because void is a fundamental type and pointers are scalar types, neither of which should have specializations of numeric_limits.
Proposed resolution:
Change 18.2 [lib.support.limits] para 1 from:
The headers
, , and supply characteristics of implementation-dependent fundamental types (3.9.1).
to:
The headers
, , and supply characteristics of implementation-dependent arithmetic types (3.9.1).
Change 18.2.1 [lib.limits] para 1 from:
The numeric_limits component provides a C++ program with information about various properties of the implementation's representation of the fundamental types.
to:
The numeric_limits component provides a C++ program with information about various properties of the implementation's representation of the arithmetic types.
Change 18.2.1 [lib.limits] para 2 from:
Specializations shall be provided for each fundamental type. . .
to:
Specializations shall be provided for each arithmetic type. . .
Change 18.2.1 [lib.limits] para 4 from:
Non-fundamental standard types. . .
to:
Non-arithmetic standard types. . .
Change 18.2.1.1 [lib.numeric.limits] para 1 from:
The member is_specialized makes it possible to distinguish between fundamental types, which have specializations, and non-scalar types, which do not.
to:
The member is_specialized makes it possible to distinguish between arithmetic types, which have specializations, and non-arithmetic types, which do not.
[post-Toronto: The opinion of the LWG is that the wording in the standard, as well as the wording of the proposed resolution, is flawed. The term "arithmetic types" is well defined in C and C++, and it is not clear that the term is being used correctly. It is also not clear that the term "implementation dependent" has any useful meaning in this context. The biggest problem is that numeric_limits seems to be intended both for built-in types and for user-defined types, and the standard doesn't make it clear how numeric_limits applies to each of those cases. A wholesale review of numeric_limits is needed. A paper would be welcome.]
Section: 23.1.2 Status: Submitter: Andrew Koenig Date: 30 Apr 2000
If mm is a multimap and p is an iterator into the multimap, then mm.insert(p, x) inserts x into mm with p as a hint as to where it should go. Table 69 claims that the execution time is amortized constant if the insert winds up taking place adjacent to p, but does not say when, if ever, this is guaranteed to happen. All it says it that p is a hint as to where to insert.
The question is whether there is any guarantee about the relationship between p and the insertion point, and, if so, what it is.
I believe the present state is that there is no guarantee: The user can supply p, and the implementation is allowed to disregard it entirely.
Additional comments from Nathan:
The vote [in Redmond] was on whether to elaborately specify the use of the hint, or to require behavior only if the value could be inserted adjacent to the hint. I would like to ensure that we have a chance to vote for a deterministic treatment: "before, if possible, otherwise after, otherwise anywhere appropriate", as an alternative to the proposed "before or after, if possible, otherwise [...]".
Proposed resolution:
In table 69 "Associative Container Requirements" in 23.1.2 , in the row for a.insert(p, t), change
iterator p is a hint pointing to where the insert should start to search.
to
insertion adjacent to iterator p is preferred if more than one insertion point is valid.
and change
logarithmic in general, but amortized constant if t is inserted right after p.
to
logarithmic in general, but amortized constant if t is inserted adjacent to iterator p.
[Toronto: there was general agreement that this is a real defect: when inserting an element x into a multiset that already contains several copies of x, there is no way to know whether the hint will be used. The proposed resolution was that the new element should always be inserted as close to the hint as possible. So, for example, if there is a subsequence of equivalent values, then providing a.begin() as the hint means that the new element should be inserted before the subsequence even if a.begin() is far away. JC van Winkel supplied precise wording for this proposed resolution, and also for an alternative resolution in which hints are only used when they are adjacent to the insertion point.]
[Copenhagen: the LWG agreed to the original proposed resolution, in which an insertion hint would be used even when it is far from the insertion point. This was contingent on seeing a reference implementation showing that it is possible to implement this requirement without loss of efficiency. John Potter provided such a reference implementation.]
[Redmond: The LWG was reluctant to adopt the proposal that emerged from Copenhagen: it seemed excessively complicated, and went beyond fixing the defect that we identified in Toronto. PJP provided the new wording described in this issue. Nathan agrees that we shouldn't adopt the more detailed semantics, and notes: "we know that you can do it efficiently enough with a red-black tree, but there are other (perhaps better) balanced tree techniques that might differ enough to make the detailed semantics hard to satisfy."]
[Curaçao: Nathan should give us the alternative wording he suggests so the LWG can decide between the two options.]
Section: 23.2.4.3 Status: Submitter: Lisa Lippincott Date: 06 June 2000
Paragraph 2 of 23.2.4.3 [lib.vector.modifiers] describes the complexity of vector::insert:
Complexity: If first and last are forward iterators, bidirectional iterators, or random access iterators, the complexity is linear in the number of elements in the range [first, last) plus the distance to the end of the vector. If they are input iterators, the complexity is proportional to the number of elements in the range [first, last) times the distance to the end of the vector.
First, this fails to address the non-iterator forms of insert.
Second, the complexity for input iterators misses an edge case -- it requires that an arbitrary number of elements can be added at the end of a vector in constant time.
At the risk of strengthening the requirement, I suggest simply
Complexity: The complexity is linear in the number of elements inserted plus the distance to the end of the vector.
For input iterators, one may achieve this complexity by first inserting at the end of the vector, and then using rotate.
I looked to see if deque had a similar problem, and was surprised to find that deque places no requirement on the complexity of inserting multiple elements (23.2.1.3 , paragraph 3):
Complexity: In the worst case, inserting a single element into a deque takes time linear in the minimum of the distance from the insertion point to the beginning of the deque and the distance from the insertion point to the end of the deque. Inserting a single element either at the beginning or end of a deque always takes constant time and causes a single call to the copy constructor of T.
I suggest:
Complexity: The complexity is linear in the number of elements inserted plus the shorter of the distances to the beginning and end of the deque. Inserting a single element at either the beginning or the end of a deque causes a single call to the copy constructor of T.
Proposed resolution:
[Toronto: It's agreed that there is a defect in complexity of multi-element insert for vector and deque. For vector, the complexity should probably be something along the lines of c1 * N + c2 * distance(i, end()). However, there is some concern about whether it is reasonable to amortize away the copies that we get from a reallocation whenever we exceed the vector's capacity. For deque, the situation is somewhat less clear. Deque is notoriously complicated, and we may not want to impose complexity requirements that would imply any implementation technique more complicated than a while loop whose body is a single-element insert.]
