This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of Resolved status.
Section: 17.12.4.7 [coroutine.handle.promise] Status: Resolved Submitter: Jiang An Opened: 2020-07-25 Last modified: 2020-11-09
Priority: 2
View all issues with Resolved status.
Discussion:
The issue is related to LWG 3460.
Because the coroutine_handle<> base subobject of a coroutine_handle<P1> can be assigned from the one of a coroutine_handle<P2>, a coroutine_handle<P1> may refer to a coroutine whose promise type is P2. If a coroutine_handle<P> refers to a coroutine with difference, a call to promise() should result in undefined behavior IMO. I think that 17.12.4.7 [coroutine.handle.promise]/1 should be changed to: "Preconditions: *this refers to a coroutine whose promise type is Promise.", and the same precondition should be added to 17.12.5.2.4 [coroutine.handle.noop.promise], and hence noexcept should be removed from coroutine_handle<noop_coroutine_promise>::promise.[2020-08-21; Reflector prioritization]
Set priority to 2 after reflector discussions.
Previous resolution [SUPERSEDED]:
This wording is relative to N4861.
Modify 17.12.4.7 [coroutine.handle.promise] as indicated:
Promise& promise() const;-1- Preconditions: *this refers to a coroutine whose promise type is Promise.
-2- Returns: A reference to the promise of the coroutine.Modify 17.12.5.2 [coroutine.handle.noop], class coroutine_handle<noop_coroutine_promise> synopsis, as indicated:
[…] // 17.12.5.2.4 [coroutine.handle.noop.promise], promise access noop_coroutine_promise& promise() constnoexcept; […]Modify 17.12.5.2.4 [coroutine.handle.noop.promise] as indicated:
noop_coroutine_promise& promise() constnoexcept;-?- Preconditions: *this refers to a coroutine whose promise type is noop_coroutine_promise.
-1- Returns: A reference to the promise object associated with this coroutine handle.
[2020-11-09 Resolved by acceptance of 3460. Status changed: Tentatively Resolved → Resolved.]
Proposed resolution:
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 3460.