Address regression introduced in #5381

[francesco-ballarin]

Description

This PR aims to fix a regression introduced in #5381 that shows up (at least) when the pybind11 wrapped type is a pointer to a forward declared class. In that case checking for std::is_base_of<> as in #5381 results in a compilation error because the forward declaration doesn't have enough information to determine the inheritance diagram.

1. Originally reported at Allow subclasses of py::args and py::kwargs #5381 (comment).
2. Technical discussion at Allow subclasses of py::args and py::kwargs #5381 (comment) and Allow subclasses of py::args and py::kwargs #5381 (comment)
3. Further technical discussion in the comments below.

Suggested changelog entry:

Not needed.

[francesco-ballarin]

@rwgk let's move the rest of the discussion here.

I implemented the patch we discussed in #5381 (comment) and #5381 (comment) but that still does not fix the regression on my actual use case, hence this PR is still marked as draft.

I think that both of us were expecting any_of<std::is_same<...>, std::is_base_of<...>> to first check if std::is_same<...> was true and, if it was, don't bother checking std::is_base_of<...>. Unfortunately it seems that each of the any_of<...> arguments is evaluated first, and then the or operation happens. This means that even with this PR my actual use case results in a compilation error. Is there anything similar to any_of that stops on the first evaluation to true?

I'll post a link to this PR in the downstream project, but I can't see a way for us downstream to work around the compilation error if the regression isn't sorted. The forward declared variable is a pointer to a class which is part of the private interface of a third-party library, over which we have no control.

[rwgk]

The forward declared variable is a pointer to a class which is part of the private interface of a third-party library

Sigh again. I've stumbled over that pattern several times before.

Fundamentalistically speaking, if it's meant to be private, it shouldn't be exposed to Python.

More pragmatically speaking: This really is in the gray area of what you can expect a bindings system to support. It just so happened that it used to work. Corner case.

To restore supporting this corner case, I think you need to experiment. I'd bet you can make it work again, but not sure, and not sure how.

I'd start with std::is_same<...>::value || std::is_base_of<...>::value as the basic idea.

It looks a little tricky to fit that into the existing machinery.

Alternatively, I'd look into changing the bindings code, to avoid exposing the private C++ type to Python.

[francesco-ballarin]

Fundamentalistically speaking, if it's meant to be private, it shouldn't be exposed to Python.

Not really. The class itself is private, but the pointer to the class is public. It will be exposed to Python by someone else, in a way we have no control over.

Hence

Alternatively, I'd look into changing the bindings code, to avoid exposing the private C++ type to Python

is a no go.

I'd start with std::is_same<...>::value || std::is_base_of<...>::value as the basic idea.

Will try.

[gentlegiantJGC]

@francesco-ballarin can you help me understand the problem better.
The example below works so I must be misunderstanding something but it is a minimal starting point.

#include <iostream>

// Start pybind11 intrinsic_type
/// Helper template to strip away type modifiers
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type {
    using type = T;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<const T> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<T *> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<T &> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<T &&> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T, size_t N>
struct intrinsic_type<const T[N]> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T, size_t N>
struct intrinsic_type<T[N]> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
using intrinsic_t = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
// End pybind11 intrinsic_type

class Test1;
typedef struct Test1* Test2;

template <typename Arg>
using f1 = std::is_same<Test1, intrinsic_t<Arg>>;

template <typename Arg>
using f2 = std::is_base_of<Test1, intrinsic_t<Arg>>;

int main() {
    std::cout << f1<Test2>::value << std::endl;
    std::cout << f2<Test2>::value << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

[francesco-ballarin]

Thanks @gentlegiantJGC for looking into this. I'd say that the following reproduces the issue starting from your minimal example. Note how I had to introduce the class args.

#include <iostream>

// Start pybind11 intrinsic_type
/// Helper template to strip away type modifiers
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type {
    using type = T;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<const T> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<T *> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<T &> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
struct intrinsic_type<T &&> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T, size_t N>
struct intrinsic_type<const T[N]> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T, size_t N>
struct intrinsic_type<T[N]> {
    using type = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
};
template <typename T>
using intrinsic_t = typename intrinsic_type<T>::type;
// End pybind11 intrinsic_type

class Test1;
typedef struct Test1* Test2;

class args {};

template <typename Arg>
using f1 = std::is_same<args, intrinsic_t<Arg>>;

template <typename Arg>
using f2 = std::is_base_of<args, intrinsic_t<Arg>>;

int main() {
    std::cout << f1<Test2>::value << std::endl;
    std::cout << f2<Test2>::value << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

fails with

$ g++ -std=c++20 main.cpp -o main
In file included from /usr/include/c++/14/bits/move.h:37,
                 from /usr/include/c++/14/bits/exception_ptr.h:41,
                 from /usr/include/c++/14/exception:166,
                 from /usr/include/c++/14/ios:41,
                 from /usr/include/c++/14/ostream:40,
                 from /usr/include/c++/14/iostream:41,
                 from main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/14/type_traits: In instantiation of ‘struct std::is_base_of<args, Test1>’:
main.cpp:50:27:   required from here
   50 |     std::cout << f2<Test2>::value << std::endl;
      |                           ^~
/usr/include/c++/14/type_traits:1493:30: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct Test1’
 1493 |     : public __bool_constant<__is_base_of(_Base, _Derived)>
      |                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
main.cpp:37:7: note: forward declaration of ‘struct Test1’
   37 | class Test1;
      |       ^~~~~
main.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
main.cpp:50:29: error: ‘value’ is not a member of ‘f2<Test1*>’ {aka ‘std::is_base_of<args, Test1>’}
   50 |     std::cout << f2<Test2>::value << std::endl;
      |                             ^~~~~

[gentlegiantJGC]

As I think you discovered in the is_base_of docs it says "Derived should be a complete type; otherwise the behavior is undefined."
I think that is the issue we are hitting.

From a quick google there are workarounds to tell if an argument is complete but they aren't very nice.

[gentlegiantJGC]

I have a solution. Perhaps you can improve upon it

#include <iostream>
#include <concepts>

template <typename, typename = void>
struct is_complete : std::false_type {};

template <typename T>
struct is_complete<T, decltype(void(sizeof(T)))> : std::true_type {};

class args {};


class ForwardClass;
class Class{};
class Args : public args {};

template<typename Base, typename Derived>
constexpr bool safe_is_base_of(){
    if constexpr (is_complete<Derived>::value){
        return std::is_base_of<Base, Derived>::value;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
}

template <typename Arg>
using argument_is_args = std::conditional_t<
    safe_is_base_of<args, Arg>(),
    std::true_type,
    std::false_type>;

int main() {
    std::cout << argument_is_args<ForwardClass>() << std::endl;
    std::cout << argument_is_args<Class>() << std::endl;
    std::cout << argument_is_args<Args>() << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

I initially tried return is_complete<Derived>::value && std::is_base_of<Base, Derived>::value; but it seems to expand both templates even if the first is false. Putting it inside if constexpr stops it expanding the is_base_of.

Edit: is_complete was based on this https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190710-00/?p=102678

[francesco-ballarin]

Looks great ❤️ . I've invited you to my fork, so that you can push to the branch associated with this PR if you wish. Once we iron out a fix I'll try it on the actual end user library.

[gentlegiantJGC]

Erm okay. Apparently if constexpr requires C++ 17.

[gentlegiantJGC]

I think that change might work. I don't understand what decltype(void(sizeof(Derived))) does other than disallowing evaluation of the second template struct. If it is a forward declaration it should use the first case and if it is a complete class it should use the second.
We will have to let the tests run to see.

[francesco-ballarin]

Thanks @gentlegiantJGC , I can now confirm that the change in this branch fixes the downstream compilation issue in the end user library.

@rwgk this is now ready for your review.

[rwgk]

IIUC: Neat! (I wish I had known the decltype(void(sizeof(Derived))) trick before!)

However, I find this comment confusing, or I don't actually understand correctly.

Did you mean this?

// This specialization prevents a compiler error if Derived is not complete.

Also, where did you find the decltype(void(sizeof(Derived))) trick?

[gentlegiantJGC]

It was based on code from the top of here (linked in my earlier message)
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190710-00/?p=102678

I don't know how official that is though.

I will make the comment more clear.

[gentlegiantJGC]

@francesco-ballarin do you want to write some test cases for this to make sure it doesn't get broken again in the future?

[rwgk]

@francesco-ballarin do you want to write some test cases for this to make sure it doesn't get broken again in the future?

That would be best, and I now believe it could be pretty simple, basically just a unit test (static_assert()) for is_same_or_base_of, in tests/test_kwargs_and_defaults.cpp. All we want to establish is that it compiles for an incomplete Derived. There doesn't need to be a runtime test.

[gentlegiantJGC]

Should there also be a test constructing a pybind class around a pointer to an incomplete type?
That way it would catch the issue if it cropped up somewhere else.

[rwgk]

Should there also be a test constructing a pybind class around a pointer to an incomplete type? That way it would catch the issue if it cropped up somewhere else.

I'd say: Great idea! But up to you.

If it works without any further production code changes: fine to include in this PR.

Otherwise I think it'll be better to merge this PR with a minimal new test, and start a new PR for what you have in mind.

[francesco-ballarin]

@gentlegiantJGC I agree it would be best to have a test that catches this, but I won't be capable of preparing one myself ;)

[gentlegiantJGC]

Looks like most of the tests are passing.
I don't understand the tests that are failing.
Are these due to the py::class_ wrapping a pointer?
What can I do to resolve them?