This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD status.
operator==
for std::basic_string
s and std::basic_string_view
s are
difficult to conform toSection: 27.4.4.2 [string.cmp], 27.4.3.8.4 [string.compare] Status: NAD Submitter: Ahti Leppänen Opened: 2017-01-09 Last modified: 2021-06-06
Priority: 2
View all issues with NAD status.
Discussion:
Currently (N4618, 2016-11-28) the specification of operator==
for std::basic_string
and std::basic_string_view
objects is clearly defined, but when
interpreted as written, it may lead to comparison of strings of different sizes being a 𝒪(n) operation
instead of a simple size check. Actual implementations in standard libraries vary so that in practice the
programmers can't rely neither on having the literal version of the standard specification nor reasonable
performance characteristics.
basic_string operator==
in N4618 is as follows:
[string.operator==]
bool operator==(const basic_string<charT, traits, Allocator>& lhs, const basic_string<charT, traits, Allocator>& rhs) noexcept;-1- Returns:
lhs.compare(rhs) == 0
.
27.4.3.8.4 [string.compare]
int compare(const basic_string& str) const noexcept;-6- Effects: Equivalent to:
return compare(basic_string_view<charT, traits>(str));
27.4.3.8.4 [string.compare]
int compare(basic_string_view<charT, traits> sv) const noexcept;-1- Effects: Determines the effective length
-2- Returns: The nonzero result if the result of the comparison is nonzero. Otherwise, returns a value as indicated in Table 63.rlen
of the strings to compare as the smaller ofsize()
andsv.size()
. The function then compares the two strings by callingtraits::compare(data(), sv.data(), rlen)
.
Table 63 — compare()
resultsCondition Return Value size() < sv.size()
< 0
size() == sv.size()
0
size() > sv.size()
> 0
From these it seems that compare()
of strings of different sizes can't return zero and operator==
will return false
. However some implementations do not seem to call traits::compare()
for
basic_string
s of different sizes even when the traits and it's compare()
are user-defined. And those
that call, make the operator==
a worst case 𝒪(n) operation even for strings of different sizes.
operator==
for basic_string
and basic_string_view
(others?) in such a way that it's performance characteristics are reasonable and the programmers can rely on having
a consistent behaviour across implementations. Perhaps the key issue here is that operator==
is defined
through compare() == 0
: while it returns the intended result, for some inputs it does computations that
are not needed by operator==
. There are also related specifications that may need to be revised, for example
operator!=
for basic_string_view
s is defined in 27.3.4 [string.view.comparison] as
Returns:
lhs.compare(rhs) != 0
[2017-01-26, Jonathan Wakely comments and provides proposed resolution]
As mentioned above, some implementations do not make a call to Traits::compare
if the string lengths are not equal,
even though in general this is an observable side effect. Some implementations only perform that optimisation for
std::string
and std::wstring
, where we know that calls to std::char_traits<char>::compare
and std::char_traits<wchar_t>::compare
are not observable.
Traits::compare
is already permitted. But if my reading is wrong we need to permit this obvious optimisation.
[2017-01-27 Telecon]
Priority 2
[2017-02-04, Ahti Leppänen comments and recommends NAD]
While there seems to be varying interpretations of the standards wording, given the comments in this defect report and definitions in [structure.specification] (N4618):
Effects: the actions performed by the function
Returns: a description of the value(s) returned by the function
I fail to see that the specification of operator==
"Returns: lhs.compare(rhs) == 0
" would require call
to compare()
and no longer consider the report valid.
[2016-07, Toronto Saturday afternoon issues processing]
Status to NAD; we accept Jonathan's reasoning. Note that several implementations do this today.
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N4618.
Preferred: NAD
Alternative:
Modify [string.operator==] p1 as shown:
template<class charT, class traits, class Allocator> bool operator==(const basic_string<charT, traits, Allocator>& lhs, const basic_string<charT, traits, Allocator>& rhs) noexcept;-1- Returns:
lhs.size() == rhs.size() && lhs.compare(rhs) == 0
.
Modify 27.3.4 [string.view.comparison] as shown:
[Example: A sample conforming implementation for
operator==
would be:template<class T> using __identity = decay_t<T>; template<class charT, class traits> constexpr bool operator==(basic_string_view<charT, traits> lhs, basic_string_view<charT, traits> rhs) noexcept { return lhs.size() == rhs.size() && lhs.compare(rhs) == 0; } template<class charT, class traits> constexpr bool operator==(basic_string_view<charT, traits> lhs, __identity<basic_string_view<charT, traits>> rhs) noexcept { return lhs.size() == rhs.size() && lhs.compare(rhs) == 0; } template<class charT, class traits> constexpr bool operator==(__identity<basic_string_view<charT, traits>> lhs, basic_string_view<charT, traits> rhs) noexcept { return lhs.size() == rhs.size() && lhs.compare(rhs) == 0; }— end example]
template<class charT, class traits> constexpr bool operator==(basic_string_view<charT, traits> lhs, basic_string_view<charT, traits> rhs) noexcept;-2- Returns:
lhs.size() == rhs.size() && lhs.compare(rhs) == 0
.template<class charT, class traits> constexpr bool operator!=(basic_string_view<charT, traits> lhs, basic_string_view<charT, traits> rhs) noexcept;-3- Returns:
lhs.size() != rhs.size() || lhs.compare(rhs) != 0
.