Adding parallel::destroy and destroy_n #2676
Conversation
|
|
||
| for (/* */; first != last; ++first) | ||
| { | ||
| std::addressof(*first)->~value_type(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need std::addressof here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the type returned from dereferencing first could have an overloaded operator&(). Alternatively we could write (*first).~value_type(), however MSVC was complaining about this for some unknown reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, the question was hinting at why not to use (*first).~value_type() in the first place, MSVC not working is anwering that, thanks!
| std::for_each(p, p + data_size, | ||
| [&count](destructable v1) | ||
| { | ||
| HPX_TEST_EQ(v1.value_, (std::uint32_t)0xcdcdcdcd); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is technically UB, isn't it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is... Do you have a better idea how to check whether an object actually was destroyed? We could perhaps simply use a counter to count invocations. Not sure.
|
It is... Do you have a better idea how to check whether an object
actually was destroyed? We could perhaps simply use a counter to count
invocations. Not sure.
Guess the counter is the only way here ... this test fails on a gcc
release build ...
|
This is related to #1141