This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of New status.
Section: 27.4.3 [basic.string], 23.3.11 [vector], 23.5.3 [unord.map], 23.5.6 [unord.set], 23.2.2 [container.requirements.general] Status: New Submitter: Nathan Myers Opened: 2019-11-17 Last modified: 2020-09-06
Priority: 3
View other active issues in [basic.string].
View all other issues in [basic.string].
View all issues with New status.
Discussion:
The Standard leaves unspecified the capacity() of a string or vector,
and bucket_count() of an unordered_(multi)set or unordered_(multi)map,
constructed by move from an empty other.
other, normative language in the Standard constrains the new object to
use (mostly) the same storage as the other, by way of lifetime of iterators and pointers
to elements.
For an empty other, there can be no such pointers or iterators. However, the empty
container may have a non-zero capacity() or bucket_count(), and having reserved
storage there, one naturally expects that storage to be delivered to the new object in the same
way as if it had elements.
Existing implementations, in fact, do move storage to the new container, provided it can be
deallocated using the new object's allocator. It is likely that existing programs have come to
depend on this behavior.
The resolution proposed is to add language to the Standard specifying that, if the allocators
of the existing and new container objects are compatible, the storage of the new object is the
same as of the old, so that no allocations or deallocations are performed in the process, as
existing implementations in fact do.
This appears to affect only string, vector, unordered_set,
unordered_multiset, unordered_map, and unordered_multimap, but any
new container types may also need similar attention.
Note that in the case of the hashed containers, the array of buckets appears not to be required
to be moved, even when elements contained are. This seems to be a similar oversight; extant
implementations do move the bucket array. The resolution should cover this case as well.
It is expected and intended that the proposed resolution does not require changes to the behavior
of implementations.
See also LWG 2321(i) and P0966R1.
[2019-11-30 Issue Prioritization]
Priority to 3 after reflector discussion.
Proposed resolution: