Welfare offer m88 uk_login bonus betfair app login_Welfare offer the william hill arms address

Fri, 14 Dec 2018 14:02:03 -0800

> On Dec 14, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Saam Barati <sbar...@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 1:54 PM, Saam Barati <sbar...@apple.com 
>> <mailto:sbar...@apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Chris Dumez <cdu...@apple.com 
>>> <mailto:cdu...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have now been caught twice by std::optional¡¯s move constructor. It turns 
>>> out that it leaves the std::optional being moved-out *engaged*, it merely 
>>> moves its value.
>>> 
>>> For example, testOptional.cpp:
>>> #include <iostream>
>>> #include <optional>
>>> 
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     std::optional<int> a = 1;
>>>     std::optional<int> b = std::move(a);
>>>     std::cout << "a is engaged? " << !!a << std::endl;
>>>     std::cout << "b is engaged? " << !!b << std::endl;
>>>     return 0;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> $ clang++ testOptional.cpp -o testOptional -std=c++17
>>> $ ./testOptional
>>> a is engaged? 1
>>> b is engaged? 1
>>> 
>>> I would have expected:
>>> a is engaged? 0
>>> b is engaged? 1
>> I would have expected this too.
>> 
>>> 
>>> This impacts the standard std::optional implementation on my machine as 
>>> well as the local copy in WebKit¡¯s wtf/Optional.h.
>>> 
>>> As far as I know, our convention in WebKit so far for our types has been 
>>> that types getting moved-out are left in a valid ¡°empty¡± state.
>> I believe it's UB to use an object after it has been moved.
> I'm wrong here.
> Apparently objects are left in a "valid but unspecified state".
> 
> free online bettinghttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/32346143/undefined-behavior-with-stdmove 
> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32346143/undefined-behavior-with-stdmove>
I believe in WebKit, however, we¡¯ve made sure our types are left in a valid 
¡°empty¡± state, thus my proposal for our own optional type that would be less 
error-prone / more convenient to use.

> 
> - Saam
>> 
>> - Saam
>> 
>>> As such, I find that std::optional¡¯s move constructor behavior is 
>>> error-prone.
>>> 
>>> I¡¯d like to know how do other feel about this behavior? If enough people 
>>> agree this is error-prone, would we consider having our
>>> own optional type in WTF which resets the engaged flag (and never allow the 
>>> std::optional)?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> ? Chris Dumez
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org>
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org>
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Reply via email to