> Can we hold off a little longer? Yes we can. The entire point of the AFAIK was to encourage migration to libc++ so it makes some sense to keep them while they still serve this purpose.
When you say "a little longer" what sort of timeline do you have in mind? It would be nice to get rid of these in the *long term*, but they aren't in danger ATM. /Eric On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsm...@apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-Feb-10, at 13:25, Bob Wilson <bob.wil...@apple.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On 10 February 2016 at 12:52, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: > >>> @Tim Are these tests in the clang test suite? > >> > >> Yep, at http://llvm.org/git/test-suite.git. > >> > >>> Marshall and I were just talking about removing <ext/hash_map> all > together. Could you explain who still uses it? > >> > >> In the test-suite, it looks like it's just these two micro-benchmarks. > >> I doubt anyone would complain about converting them to use > >> std::unordered_map (especially since the underlying implementation > >> seems to be shared anyway). > >> > >> Outside that, we seem to have a handful of internal users and Bob may > >> have ABI backwards-compatibility concerns (or not). I've added him > >> explicitly. > > > > I will defer to Duncan on that question. > > Removing ext/hash_map and ext/hash_set is a great idea. I don't have > any ABI concerns with removing them, since they are both header-only. > > Unfortunately, we still have users on libstdc++ that use ext/hash_set > and ext/hash_map, and deleting these would make migration to libc++ > harder. Can we hold off a little longer? Feel free to file a PR and > assign it to me.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
