STL
STL copied to clipboard
`<xutility>`: Evil member `element_type` can break non-ranges algorithms since C++20
Describe the bug
Currently, MSVC STL defines _Iter_value_t in term of iter_value_t since C++20 and uses it in non-ranges algorithms.
https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/8b081e26ba016970ce3338cb483ff10f2ade30a5/stl/inc/xutility#L1167-L1168 https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/8b081e26ba016970ce3338cb483ff10f2ade30a5/stl/inc/xutility#L1177-L1178
Per [readable.traits], if a type I has mismatched member types value_type and element_type, then iter_value_t<I> is ill-formed by default (when there's no program-defined indirectly_readable_traits or iterator_traits specializations), and thus I doesn't satisfy any C++20 meow_iterator concept. However, I can still meet Cpp17MeowIterator requirements because the legacy requirements don't consider element_type, so such strategy sometimes rejects valid programs.
For example, this example should be valid since C++17. But MSVC STL starts to reject it since C++20 while other implementations don't (Godbolt link).
#include <algorithm>
#include <cassert>
#include <cstddef>
#include <iterator>
#include <type_traits>
template <class T>
struct evil_contiguous_iterator {
T* ptr;
template <class CT = const T, std::enable_if_t<!std::is_const_v<T>, int> = 0>
constexpr operator evil_contiguous_iterator<CT>() const noexcept {
return {ptr};
}
using value_type = std::remove_cv_t<T>;
using reference = T&;
using pointer = T*;
using difference_type = std::ptrdiff_t;
using iterator_category = std::random_access_iterator_tag;
using element_type = void; // This is EVIL but shouldn't affect non-ranges algorithms.
friend constexpr bool operator==(evil_contiguous_iterator i, evil_contiguous_iterator j) noexcept {
return i.ptr == j.ptr;
}
friend constexpr bool operator!=(evil_contiguous_iterator i, evil_contiguous_iterator j) noexcept {
return i.ptr != j.ptr;
}
friend constexpr bool operator<(evil_contiguous_iterator i, evil_contiguous_iterator j) noexcept {
return i.ptr < j.ptr;
}
friend constexpr bool operator>(evil_contiguous_iterator i, evil_contiguous_iterator j) noexcept {
return i.ptr > j.ptr;
}
friend constexpr bool operator<=(evil_contiguous_iterator i, evil_contiguous_iterator j) noexcept {
return i.ptr <= j.ptr;
}
friend constexpr bool operator>=(evil_contiguous_iterator i, evil_contiguous_iterator j) noexcept {
return i.ptr >= j.ptr;
}
constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator& operator++() noexcept {
++ptr;
return *this;
}
constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator operator++(int) noexcept {
auto that = *this;
++*this;
return that;
}
constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator& operator--() noexcept {
--ptr;
return *this;
}
constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator operator--(int) noexcept {
auto that = *this;
--*this;
return that;
}
constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator& operator+=(difference_type n) noexcept {
ptr += n;
return *this;
}
constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator& operator-=(difference_type n) noexcept {
ptr -= n;
return *this;
}
friend constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator operator+(evil_contiguous_iterator i, difference_type n) noexcept {
return {i.ptr + n};
}
friend constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator operator+(difference_type n, evil_contiguous_iterator i) noexcept {
return {i.ptr + n};
}
friend constexpr evil_contiguous_iterator operator-(evil_contiguous_iterator i, difference_type n) noexcept {
return {i.ptr - n};
}
friend constexpr difference_type operator-(evil_contiguous_iterator i, evil_contiguous_iterator j) noexcept {
return i.ptr - j.ptr;
}
constexpr T& operator*() const noexcept {
return *ptr;
}
constexpr T& operator[](difference_type n) const noexcept {
return ptr[n];
}
constexpr T* operator->() const noexcept {
return ptr;
}
};
int main() {
int a[]{4, 2, 1, 7, 2, 9};
std::sort(evil_contiguous_iterator<int>{std::begin(a)}, evil_contiguous_iterator<int>{std::end(a)});
}
Expected behavior
This example compiles in C++20/23 modes as in C++17.
STL version
Probably every version from 1e8b8d4eef4b2dddeb7533c5231c876383bd0ea6 to 8b081e26ba016970ce3338cb483ff10f2ade30a5.
Additional context
WG21-P2408R5 complicated the situation.
- As of C++23, requirements on constant iterators for non-ranges algorithms were changed to
meowiteratorconcepts, which would newly require well-formedness ofiter_value_tin some cases. Butstd::sortwasn't affected. - However, as implied the 6.2. section of the paper, such breakage was unlikely found by the author, and thus was possibly unintended.
- MSVC STL implemented the changes in C++20 mode and permitted both
meowiteratorand Cpp17MeowIterator.
Incorrect attempt
IMO a "fix" could be implementing `_Iter_value_t` like the following since C++20.
template <class _Iter>
struct _Iter_value_fallback : indirectly_readable_traits<_Iter> {};
template <_Has_member_value_type _Iter>
struct _Iter_value_fallback<_Iter> : _Cond_value_type<typename _Iter::value_type> {};
template <_Has_member_element_type _Iter>
requires (!_Has_member_value_type<_Iter>)
struct _Iter_value_fallback<_Iter> : _Cond_value_type<typename _Iter::element_type> {};
template <class _Iter>
using _Iter_value_t = conditional_t<_Is_from_primary<iterator_traits<remove_cvref_t<_Iter>>>,
_Iter_value_fallback<remove_cvref_t<_Iter>>, iterator_traits<remove_cvref_t<_Iter>>>::value_type;
Perhaps we can add an internal typedef name to this specialization for workaround: https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/8b081e26ba016970ce3338cb483ff10f2ade30a5/stl/inc/__msvc_iter_core.hpp#L153-L155
We talked about this at the weekly maintainer meeting, although @CaseyCarter was out sick so our analysis powers were limited. This was introduced by #329. Switching ugly _Iter_value_t to be C++20 iter_value_t with different semantics appears to be a bug for the reasons you've explained, but #329 said that this was to "enable unwrapping of C++20 move-only single-pass iterators". It appears that many uses of ugly _Iter_value_t can't possibly be handling such C++20 move-only single-pass iterators (because the uses are in stable_sort() etc. where stronger iterators are required).
We believe that a full audit of all ugly _Iter_value_t usage will be necessary, to determine which ones:
- Should always expand to
iterator_traits::value_type - Should have this behavior of conditionally switching between
iterator_traits::value_typeand C++20iter_value_t - Should always be C++20
iter_value_t
In general, we should avoid having aliases that switch their semantics based on Standard mode, except when explicitly commented/known that their downlevel behavior is a "best effort" approximation with no harmful downsides (e.g. <xutility>'s _Iterator_is_contiguous is ok).
We believe that a full audit of all ugly
_Iter_value_tusage will be necessary, to determine which ones:
- Should always expand to
iterator_traits::value_type- Should have this behavior of conditionally switching between
iterator_traits::value_typeand C++20iter_value_t- Should always be C++20
iter_value_t
Per WG21-P2248R7, it seems that the value type should be consistently iterator_traits::value_type for non-ranges algorithms. Perhaps conditionally switching is only applicable to move_iterator and reverse_iterator's value_type.
Filed LWG-4080 for this.