-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 778
[2025-02 CWG Motion 4] P1494R5 Partial program correctness #7681
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This needs a \movedxref entry in xrefdelta.tex
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
xrefprev seems to be missing utility.unreachable. I'll add it, but it also seems to be missing about 500 other stable names from N4950 that are not in xrefprev. would you like me to add those? (It's unclear to me what the intent of the contents of xrefprev is --- whether it should be removed names, or just all names that were previously in use -- either way that is not what it is).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
xrefprev is supposed to be the list of xrefs in C++17, so that we get warnings from our tooling when a label vanishes without mention in xrefdelta.tex. Maybe that went wrong when I added that; Alisdair has a patch in a nearby pull request, too.
So, until we fix xrefprev for real, we need to manually add the old label.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok. shouldn't it be the list of stable names from any previously published standard? Or from C++17 to C++23 inclusive? I could grab that pretty easily if it helps (I already extracted it from C++23), but for this PR I have added utility.uncreachable manually to xrefprev.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem is we've added the label since C++17, and now we're renaming it. So, it's technically not correct that it was a label in C++17, which xrefprev attempts to represent.
The once-off fix feels reasonable for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I merged Alisdair's changes, but I don't think it touches on this. But we can follow this up later I suppose?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My understanding of @StephanTLavavej's request is that we don't just want the diff of the stable labels relative to one arbitrary point in the past, but rather, we want a full history of things that have happened, so that if you've been working with any one version of the document and are switching to a newer one, you can look up what happened to the label you had been working with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I definitely think that'd be way more useful than just "here's things that were in C++17 that might have moved". It might be even more useful to have the index list when the name was moved (i.e, "utility.unreachable (moved in C++26, see utility.undefined)"