[libc++] Falsely rejected code for std::unique_ptr because __compressed_pair requires different types.

[SainoNamkho]

As shown in https://godbolt.org/z/4K6q9bo3e, only libc++ refuses to compile the following code

#include <memory>
#include <any>

void f(std::any) {}

std::unique_ptr<decltype(f), decltype(f)*> p(f, f);

I've not found anywhere in the draft saying this should be rejected.

1. Why does __compressed_pair require the two template arguments to be distinct and the _CanBeEmptyBase traits? If they make it unable to compress, then an uncompressed layout is automatically produced, with no need to be explicitly rejected. And the indices used by __compressed_pair_elem suggest that it handles same types correctly.
2. If it is reasonable to keep the implementation of __compressed_pair, is it a good solution to change unique_ptr into use something like conditional_t<same_as<pointer, deleter_type>, __compressed_pair<<pointer, deleter_type>, ...>?

[philnik777]

As the diagnostic says, the current implementation isn't ABI compatible with an older implementation. You are correct that it's non-conforming to reject this. Given that AFAIK nobody complained about it yet, it's not exactly a pressing issue though, and nobody got actually broken by the ABI change. Re. (2), I'd really like to avoid allowing this now. #76756 gets rid of __compressed_pair entirely and I'd rather avoid having to extend the ABI compatibility code. It's already complex enough.

[SainoNamkho]

As the diagnostic says, the current implementation isn't ABI compatible with an older implementation. You are correct that it's non-conforming to reject this. Given that AFAIK nobody complained about it yet, it's not exactly a pressing issue though, and nobody got actually broken by the ABI change. Re. (2), I'd really like to avoid allowing this now. #76756 gets rid of __compressed_pair entirely and I'd rather avoid having to extend the ABI compatibility code. It's already complex enough.

Thanks a lot, I myself feel glad about the ABI breaking patch, if the team decides the change is worthy.

[frederick-vs-ja]

See https://reviews.llvm.org/D27565.

@EricWF said that

Grr... OK so this is currently ABI breaking because it re-arranges the layout of __compressed_pair<T1, T2> when T2 is empty but T1 is not. I might be able to work around this with some metaprogramming.

But in this issue both T1 and T2 are pointers, which shouldn't be affected. Should we static_assert !(is_same<_T1, _T2>::value && is_empty<_T1>::value) instead?

[philnik777]

Since it will change in the next release, I'd rather not touch it at all until then. I don't think this is an especially pressing issue.