diff options
author | Benjamin Barenblat <bbaren@google.com> | 2024-09-03 11:49:29 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Benjamin Barenblat <bbaren@google.com> | 2024-09-03 11:49:29 -0400 |
commit | c1afa8b8238c25591ca80d068477aa7d4ce05fc8 (patch) | |
tree | 284a9f8b319de5783ff83ad004a9e390cb60fd0d /absl/container/inlined_vector_test.cc | |
parent | 23778b53f420f54eebc195dd8430e79bda165e5b (diff) | |
parent | 4447c7562e3bc702ade25105912dce503f0c4010 (diff) |
Merge new upstream LTS 20240722.0
Diffstat (limited to 'absl/container/inlined_vector_test.cc')
-rw-r--r-- | absl/container/inlined_vector_test.cc | 84 |
1 files changed, 83 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/absl/container/inlined_vector_test.cc b/absl/container/inlined_vector_test.cc index 241389ae..6954262e 100644 --- a/absl/container/inlined_vector_test.cc +++ b/absl/container/inlined_vector_test.cc @@ -304,6 +304,86 @@ TEST(UniquePtr, MoveAssign) { } } +// Swapping containers of unique pointers should work fine, with no +// leaks, despite the fact that unique pointers are trivially relocatable but +// not trivially destructible. +// TODO(absl-team): Using unique_ptr here is technically correct, but +// a trivially relocatable struct would be less semantically confusing. +TEST(UniquePtr, Swap) { + for (size_t size1 = 0; size1 < 5; ++size1) { + for (size_t size2 = 0; size2 < 5; ++size2) { + absl::InlinedVector<std::unique_ptr<size_t>, 2> a; + absl::InlinedVector<std::unique_ptr<size_t>, 2> b; + for (size_t i = 0; i < size1; ++i) { + a.push_back(std::make_unique<size_t>(i + 10)); + } + for (size_t i = 0; i < size2; ++i) { + b.push_back(std::make_unique<size_t>(i + 20)); + } + a.swap(b); + ASSERT_THAT(a, SizeIs(size2)); + ASSERT_THAT(b, SizeIs(size1)); + for (size_t i = 0; i < a.size(); ++i) { + ASSERT_THAT(a[i], Pointee(i + 20)); + } + for (size_t i = 0; i < b.size(); ++i) { + ASSERT_THAT(b[i], Pointee(i + 10)); + } + } + } +} + +// Erasing from a container of unique pointers should work fine, with no +// leaks, despite the fact that unique pointers are trivially relocatable but +// not trivially destructible. +// TODO(absl-team): Using unique_ptr here is technically correct, but +// a trivially relocatable struct would be less semantically confusing. +TEST(UniquePtr, EraseSingle) { + for (size_t size = 4; size < 16; ++size) { + absl::InlinedVector<std::unique_ptr<size_t>, 8> a; + for (size_t i = 0; i < size; ++i) { + a.push_back(std::make_unique<size_t>(i)); + } + a.erase(a.begin()); + ASSERT_THAT(a, SizeIs(size - 1)); + for (size_t i = 0; i < size - 1; ++i) { + ASSERT_THAT(a[i], Pointee(i + 1)); + } + a.erase(a.begin() + 2); + ASSERT_THAT(a, SizeIs(size - 2)); + ASSERT_THAT(a[0], Pointee(1)); + ASSERT_THAT(a[1], Pointee(2)); + for (size_t i = 2; i < size - 2; ++i) { + ASSERT_THAT(a[i], Pointee(i + 2)); + } + } +} + +// Erasing from a container of unique pointers should work fine, with no +// leaks, despite the fact that unique pointers are trivially relocatable but +// not trivially destructible. +// TODO(absl-team): Using unique_ptr here is technically correct, but +// a trivially relocatable struct would be less semantically confusing. +TEST(UniquePtr, EraseMulti) { + for (size_t size = 5; size < 16; ++size) { + absl::InlinedVector<std::unique_ptr<size_t>, 8> a; + for (size_t i = 0; i < size; ++i) { + a.push_back(std::make_unique<size_t>(i)); + } + a.erase(a.begin(), a.begin() + 2); + ASSERT_THAT(a, SizeIs(size - 2)); + for (size_t i = 0; i < size - 2; ++i) { + ASSERT_THAT(a[i], Pointee(i + 2)); + } + a.erase(a.begin() + 1, a.begin() + 3); + ASSERT_THAT(a, SizeIs(size - 4)); + ASSERT_THAT(a[0], Pointee(2)); + for (size_t i = 1; i < size - 4; ++i) { + ASSERT_THAT(a[i], Pointee(i + 4)); + } + } +} + // At the end of this test loop, the elements between [erase_begin, erase_end) // should have reference counts == 0, and all others elements should have // reference counts == 1. @@ -783,7 +863,9 @@ TEST(OverheadTest, Storage) { // The union should be absorbing some of the allocation bookkeeping overhead // in the larger vectors, leaving only the size_ field as overhead. - struct T { void* val; }; + struct T { + void* val; + }; size_t expected_overhead = sizeof(T); EXPECT_EQ((2 * expected_overhead), |