How to detect availability of C++17's extended memory management algorithms with execution policies in source code?

Question

P0040R3 (adopted 2016-06, see also N4603) introduced some extended memory management algorithms like std::uninitialized_move_n into the draft, and finally it became parts of ISO C++17. Some of them had an extra overload with a ExecutionPolicy parameter for potential support of parallelism.

However, as of now (Aug 2018), I don't find any standard library implementation shipped with the implementations of these overloads. And the documentation of implementations I've checked does not clarify it well. Specifically, (currently) they are:

• libstdc++ shows it does not support P0040R3 in trunk, but actually at least std::destroy_at and std::uninitialized_move_n without ExecutionPolicy are in GCC 8.2.
• libc++ has "Complete" support of P0040R3 since 4.0, but the overloads with ExecutionPolicy are actually missing.
• Microsoft VC++ has support of P0040R3 since VS 2017 15.3 with /std:c++17 or /std:c++latest, but the overloads with ExecutionPolicy are actually missing.

The only implementation with ExecutionPolicy overloads I know is in HPX, but this is not a full implementation of the standard library. If I want to use the features portably, I have to adapt to custom implementation likewise, rather than direct use of std names. But I still want to use std implementation in future as preference (unless they have known bugs). (The reason is that implementation-defined execution policies are tightly coupled with concrete implementations, so external implementations as well as their client code would likely have less opportunity to utilize various execution policies in general; although this is not necessarily true for client code which is not guaranteed portable in the sense of conforming to standard.) Thus, I want something available for conditional inclusion in my potable adaptive layer for implementations - to get the specified features with using std::... when they are provided by the standard library, and complement it with my implementations as the fallback of missing parts from the standard library implementation only when necessary.

As I have known, the SD-6 feature testing macros as well as P0941R2 shows __cpp_lib_raw_memory_algorithms is sufficient for the features in P0040R3. On the other hand, __cpp_lib_parallel_algorithm seems not related to <memory> at all. So there is no way to express the state like current libc++ and MSVC implementations - with std names from P0040R3 but lack of ExecutionPolicy overloads. And I'm not sure __has_include<execution> would ever work. The reality may be quirkier, e.g. P0336R1 is even not supported by libc++.

So, how to get it perfectly portable in my code when the features become (hopefully) available in some newer version of the standard library implementations, except inspecting the source of each version of them, or totally reinventing my wheels of the whole P0040R3?

Edited:

I know the intended use of feature testing macros and I think libstdc++ has done the right thing. However, there is room to improve. More specifically, my code of the portable layer would play the role of the implementation (like HPX), but more "lightweight" in the sense of not reinventing wheels when they are already provided by the standard library implementation:

namespace my
{
#if ???
//#if __cpp_lib_raw_memory_algorithms
using std::uninitialized_move_n;
// XXX: Is this sufficient???
#else
// ... wheels here ... not expected to be more efficient to std counterparts in general
#endif
}

so my client code can be:

my::uninitialized_move_n(???::par, iter, size, d_iter);

rather than (copied from Barry's answer):

#if __cpp_lib_raw_memory_algorithms
std::uninitialized_move_n(std::execution::par, iter, size, d_iter);
#else
// ???
#endif

Both pieces of the code can work, but obviously checking __cpp_lib_raw_memory_algorithms directly everywhere in client code is more costly.

Ideally I should have some complete up-to-date standard library implementation, but that is not always the case I can guarantee (particularly working with environments where the standard library is installed as parts of system libraries). I need the adaption to ease the clients' work anyway.

The fallback is obvious: avoiding the using std::uninitialized_move_n; path totally. I'm afraid this would be a pessimistic implementation so I want to avoid this approach when possible.

Second update:

Because "perfectly portable" sounds unclear, I have illustrated some code in the edit above. Although the question is not changed and still covered by the title, I will make it more concrete here.

The "perfectly portable" way I want in the question is restricted as, given the code like the edit above, filling up any parts marked in ???, without relying on any particular versions of language implementations (e.g., nothing like macro names depended on implementations should be used for the purpose).

See here and here for the code examples fail to meet the criteria. (Well, these versions are figured out via inspection of commit logs... certainly imperfect, and, still buggy in some cases.) Note this is not related to the overloads with ExecutionPolicy yet, because they are missing in the mentioned standard library implementations, and my next action is depending on the solution of this question. (But the future of the names in std should be clear.)

A perfect (enough) solution can be, for example, adding a new feature testing macro to make the overloads independent from __cpp_lib_raw_memory_algorithms so in future I can just add my implementation of the overloads with ExecutionPolicy when they are not detected by the stand-alone new feature testing macro, without messing up the condition of #if again. But certainly I can't guarantee this way would be feasible; it ultimately depends on the decision of the committee and vendors.

I'm not sure whether there can be other directions.

Answer 1

The initial version of P0941 contained a table which made it clear that P0040R3 has the corresponding feature-test macro __cpp_lib_raw_memory_algorithms. This implies that the correct, portable way to write code to conditionally use this feature is:

#if __cpp_lib_raw_memory_algorithms
std::uninitialized_move_n(std::execution::par, iter, size, d_iter);
#else
// ???
#endif

The imposed requirement is that if that macro is defined, then that function exists and does what the standard prescribes. But that macro not being defined does not really say anything. As you point out, there are parts of P0040R3 that are implemented in libstdc++ - parts, but not all, which is why the feature-test macro is not defined.

There is currently a concerted effort to implement the parallel algorithms in libstdc++.

As to what to do in the #else branch there, well... you're kind of on your own.