[whole standard] Audit index of implementation-defined behavior #899

AlisdairM · 2016-08-11T15:33:58Z

Review all uses of the terms 'implementation-defined' and
'implementation defined' in the standard, and replace with
\impldef entries in the index of implementation defined
behavior where appropriate.

Clean up some older index entries that did not have a clear
reference, and appear to predate the index of implementation
defined behavior being added by Pete Becker for C++11.

Changes may appear more disruptive than in practice, due to
word-wrapping reflowing a paragraph or two in the doc source,
but not on the rendered pdf.

Review all uses of the terms 'implementation-defined' and 'implementation defined' in the standard, and replace with \impldef entries in the index of implementation defined behavior where appropriate. Clean up some older index entries that did not have a clear reference, and appear to predate the index of implementation defined behavior being added by Pete Becker for C++11. Changes may appear more disruptive than in practice, due to word-wrapping reflowing a paragraph or two in the doc source, but not on the rendered pdf.

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T18:58:58Z

source/algorithms.tex

@@ -1277,7 +1277,8 @@
 If the threads of execution created by \tcode{std::thread} provide concurrent
 forward progress guarantees~(\ref{intro.progress}), then a thread of execution
 implicitly created by the library will provide parallel forward progress guarantees;
-otherwise, the provided forward progress guarantee is implementation-defined.
+otherwise, the provided forward progress guarantee is
+\impldef{forward progress guarantees for implicits thread of parallel agorithms (if not defined for \tcode{std::thread})}.


Typos: "implicits thread" -> "implicit threads", "agorithms"

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T19:01:01Z

source/basic.tex

@@ -2889,8 +2889,8 @@
 passing an invalid pointer value to a deallocation function
 have undefined behavior.
 Any other use of an invalid pointer value
-has implementation-defined behavior.%
-\footnote{Some implementations might define that
+has \impldef{any use of an invalid pointer other than to dereference or deallcate}


"deallcate"

Maybe dereference -> perform indirection?

Done and Done

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T19:02:39Z

source/compatibility.tex

@@ -1482,8 +1482,9 @@
 Valid \CppXIV code that uses trigraphs may not be valid or may have different
 semantics in this International Standard. Implementations may choose to
 translate trigraphs as specified in \CppXIV if they appear outside of a raw
-string literal, as part of the implementation-defined mapping from physical
-source file characters to the basic source character set.
+string literal, as part of the \impldef{mapping physical source file characters


Maybe add "of" or "from" after "mapping"?

Chose 'from'

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T19:03:41Z

source/conversions.tex

@@ -176,7 +176,8 @@

 \item Otherwise, if the object to which the glvalue refers contains an invalid
 pointer value~(\ref{basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation},
-\ref{basic.stc.dynamic.safety}), the behavior is implementation-defined.
+\ref{basic.stc.dynamic.safety}), the behavior is
+\impldef{lvalue-to-rvalue conversion of an invalid pointer}.


pointer -> pointer value

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T19:06:47Z

source/lex.tex

@@ -181,7 +181,8 @@
 the members of the basic source character set are intended to
 identify characters from the subset of ISO/IEC 10646 which corresponds to the ASCII
 character set. However, because the mapping from source file characters to the source
-character set (described in translation phase 1) is specified as implementation-defined,
+character set (described in translation phase 1) is specified as
+\impldef{mapping physical source file characters to basic source character set},


Keep this matching the other occurrence of this phrase if we add "of" or "from" there.

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T19:07:57Z

source/lex.tex

+is conditionally-supported with \impldef{meaning of \tcode{'}, \tcode{\textbackslash},
+\tcode{/*}, or \tcode{//} in a \grammarterm{q-char-sequence} or an
+\grammarterm{h-char-sequence}} semantics, as is the appearance of the character
+\tcode{"} in an \grammarterm{h-char-sequence}.\footnote{Thus, a sequence of characters


We should presumably have some entry for the "-in-h-char-sequence case, perhaps add words for this case to the prior \impldef?

This is a slightly more complex rewording than I, as a non-Core-competent drafter, am comfortable with. I agree a change for the index is important, but without "implementation-defined" occurring as a phrase in the current paragraph, I would need to substantially reword in order to introduce an \impldef{}. As the rest of this patch is entirely such simple substitutions, I would prefer to open #928, and land the rest of this patch.

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T19:13:04Z

source/utilities.tex

@@ -11018,7 +11018,8 @@
 from the upstream memory resource~(\ref{memory.resource.monotonic.buffer})
 to replenish a pool.
 If the value of \tcode{max_blocks_per_chunk} is zero or
-is greater than an implementation-defined limit, that limit is used instead.
+is greater than an \impldef{maximum maximum number of blocks to replenish a pool}


"maximum maximum"

maximum maximum is actually correct, but probably too cute - reworded.

zygoloid · 2016-09-22T19:15:19Z

source/utilities.tex

@@ -11036,7 +11037,8 @@
 Attempts to allocate a single block larger than this threshold
 will be allocated directly from the upstream memory resource.
 If \tcode{largest_required_pool_block} is zero or
-is greater than an implementation-defined limit, that limit is used instead.
+is greater than an \impldef{largest allocation satisfied directly by a pool}


I don't think this is quite right; the thing that's implementation-defined is the largest value that is supported as the largest allocation to be satisfied by a pool. But some less-confusing way to word that would be preferred :)

Update patch for index of implenetation-defined behavior following review.

Eelis mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2016

[intro.progress] Add missing impldef index entry for concurrent forward progress guarantees provided by threads of execution. #853

Closed

zygoloid reviewed Sep 22, 2016

View reviewed changes

zygoloid requested changes Sep 22, 2016

View reviewed changes

Fix typos and reword index entries

b62fb0a

Update patch for index of implenetation-defined behavior following review.

zygoloid approved these changes Sep 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

zygoloid merged commit f797a8c into cplusplus:master Sep 23, 2016

AlisdairM deleted the impldef_index_entries branch September 23, 2016 23:11

This was referenced Sep 27, 2016

implementation-defined vs. implementation defined vs. impldef #687

Closed

implementation-defined bits not in implementation-defined index #98

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[whole standard] Audit index of implementation-defined behavior #899

[whole standard] Audit index of implementation-defined behavior #899

AlisdairM commented Aug 11, 2016

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016 •

edited

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016 •

edited

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016

[whole standard] Audit index of implementation-defined behavior #899

[whole standard] Audit index of implementation-defined behavior #899

Conversation

AlisdairM commented Aug 11, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zygoloid Sep 22, 2016 •

edited

AlisdairM Sep 23, 2016 •

edited