Author: marshall
Date: Mon Oct 10 12:11:37 2016
New Revision: 283781
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=283781&view=rev
Log:
Updated notes about issues; marked 2062, 2223, 2394, 2460 and 2540 as complete.
Modified:
libcxx/trunk/www/upcoming_meeting.html
Modified: libcxx/trunk/www/upcoming_meeting.html
URL:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/www/upcoming_meeting.html?rev=283781&r1=283780&r2=283781&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- libcxx/trunk/www/upcoming_meeting.html (original)
+++ libcxx/trunk/www/upcoming_meeting.html Mon Oct 10 12:11:37 2016
@@ -59,14 +59,14 @@
<table id="issues" border="1">
<tr><th>Issue #</th><th>Issue
Name</th><th>Meeting</th><th>Status</th></tr>
- <tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2062";>2062</a></td><td>Effect
contradictions w/o no-throw guarantee of std::function
swaps</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
+ <tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2062";>2062</a></td><td>Effect
contradictions w/o no-throw guarantee of std::function
swaps</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>Nothing to do.</td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2166";>2166</a></td><td>Heap
property underspecified?</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2221";>2221</a></td><td>No
formatted output operator for nullptr</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>Patch
ready</td></tr>
- <tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2223";>2223</a></td><td>shrink_to_fit effect on
iterator validity</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
+ <tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2223";>2223</a></td><td>shrink_to_fit effect on
iterator validity</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>Nothing to do.</td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2261";>2261</a></td><td>Are
containers required to use their 'pointer' type
internally?</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2358";>2358</a></td><td>Apparently-bogus definition of
is_empty type trait</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>We already do this</td></tr>
- <tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2394";>2394</a></td><td>locale::name specification
unclear - what is implementation-defined?</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
- <tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2460";>2460</a></td><td>LWG issue
2408 and value categories</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
+ <tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2394";>2394</a></td><td>locale::name specification
unclear - what is implementation-defined?</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>Nothing to
do.</td></tr>
+ <tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2460";>2460</a></td><td>LWG issue
2408 and value categories</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>Nothing to do.</td></tr>
<tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2468";>2468</a></td><td>Self-move-assignment of
library types</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2475";>2475</a></td><td>Allow
overwriting of std::basic_string terminator with charT() to allow cleaner
interoperation with legacy APIs</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>Nothing to
do.</td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2503";>2503</a></td><td>multiline
option should be added to syntax_option_type</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
<tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2531";>2531</a></td><td>future::get should explicitly
state that the shared state is released</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2534";>2534</a></td><td>Constrain
rvalue stream operators</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2536";>2536</a></td><td>What
should <complex.h> do?</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>We already do
this</td></tr>
- <tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2540";>2540</a></td><td>unordered_multimap::insert
hint iterator</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
+ <tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2540";>2540</a></td><td>unordered_multimap::insert
hint iterator</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>We already do this</td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2543";>2543</a></td><td>LWG 2148
(hash support for enum types) seems
under-specified</td><td>Issaquah</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td><a
href="http://wg21.link/LWG2544";>2544</a></td><td>istreambuf_iterator(basic_streambuf<charT,
traits>* s) effects unclear when s is 0</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>We already do
this</td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://wg21.link/LWG2556";>2556</a></td><td>Wide
contract for future::share()</td><td>Issaquah</td><td>Patch ready</td></tr>
@@ -133,35 +133,35 @@
<h3>Comments about the issues</h3>
<ul>
-<li>2062 - </li>
-<li>2166 - </li>
+<li>2062 - We already do this; added some tests to make sure we keep doing
so.</li>
+<li>2166 - I <b>suspect</b> that this is just better specification of the
existing structure. Probably need more tests for this.</li>
<li>2221 - Patch and tests ready</li>
-<li>2223 - </li>
-<li>2261 - </li>
+<li>2223 - This is just wording cleanup. </li>
+<li>2261 - <b>Survey our containers to make sure we do this.</b> Ideally, this
will result in no code changes.</li>
<li>2358 - We already do this; I improved the tests</li>
-<li>2394 - </li>
-<li>2460 - </li>
+<li>2394 - This is just wording cleanup.</li>
+<li>2460 - This is just wording cleanup.</li>
<li>2468 - <i>I think we already do this; but will need to survey the libray
to be sure</i></li>
<li>2475 - Nothing to do here. </li>
<li>2503 - </li>
-<li>2510 - <i>Need to write tests for all the tag types</i></li>
+<li>2510 - <b>Need to write tests for all the tag types</b></li>
<li>2514 - Nothing to do; We don't mark any of the type traits as final. </li>
<li>2519 - This is just wording cleanup. </li>
-<li>2531 - </li>
+<li>2531 - This <b>should be</b> just wording cleanup. </li>
<li>2534 - </li>
<li>2536 - We already do this. </li>
-<li>2540 - </li>
+<li>2540 - We already do this, and have tests for it.</li>
<li>2543 - </li>
<li>2544 - We already do this; I've added tests to make sure we keep doing
so</li>
<li>2556 - Patch and tests ready</li>
-<li>2562 - </li>
+<li>2562 - I <b>suspect</b> that this is just better specification of the
existing structure. Probably need more tests for this.</li>
<li>2567 - This is just wording cleanup.</li>
<li>2569 - This is just wording cleanup.</li>
<li>2570 - Same as 2569, but applied to LFTS</li>
<li>2578 - This is just wording cleanup. </li>
<li>2584 - </li>
<li>2589 - This is just wording cleanup. </li>
-<li>2591 - </li>
+<li>2591 - I <b>suspect</b> that this is just better specification of the
existing structure. Probably need more tests for this.</li>
<li>2598 - Patch and tests ready</li>
<li>2664 - File System; Eric?</li>
<li>2665 - File System; Eric?</li>
@@ -173,39 +173,39 @@
<li>2682 - File System; Eric?</li>
<li>2686 - Patch and tests ready</li>
<li>2694 - Restoring inadvertently deleted text. No code changes needed.</li>
-<li>2696 - </li>
+<li>2696 - I <b>suspect</b> that this is just better specification of the
existing structure. Probably need more tests for this.</li>
<li>2699 - I don't think this requires any code changes; look more
closely.</li>
-<li>2712 - </li>
+<li>2712 - File System; Eric?</li>
<li>2722 - File System; Eric?</li>
<li>2729 - </li>
<li>2732 - File System; Eric?</li>
-<li>2733 - </li>
-<li>2735 - </li>
+<li>2733 - LFTS; same as 2759</li>
+<li>2735 - I <b>suspect</b> that this is just better specification of the
existing structure. Probably need more tests for this.</li>
<li>2736 - </li>
<li>2738 - We already do this; I added tests for cv-void</li>
<li>2739 - Patch and tests ready</li>
-<li>2740 - </li>
+<li>2740 - <i>std::optional</i></li>
<li>2742 - Patch and tests ready</li>
-<li>2744 - </li>
-<li>2745 - </li>
-<li>2747 - </li>
-<li>2748 - </li>
-<li>2749 - </li>
-<li>2750 - </li>
+<li>2744 - <i>std::any</i></li>
+<li>2745 - <i>std::optional</i> for LFTS -- should be considered for C++17</li>
+<li>2747 - I <b>suspect</b> that this is just better specification of the
existing structure. Probably need more tests for this.</li>
+<li>2748 - <i>std::optional</i></li>
+<li>2749 - <i>std::variant</i></li>
+<li>2750 - <i>std::optional</i> for LFTS -- should be considered for C++17</li>
<li>2752 - </li>
-<li>2753 - </li>
+<li>2753 - <i>std::optional</i></li>
<li>2754 - </li>
<li>2755 - Both string and string_view call a common routine for output; so no
code changes needed.</li>
-<li>2756 - </li>
+<li>2756 - <i>std::optional</i></li>
<li>2759 - Patch and tests ready</li>
<li>2760 - This is just wording cleanup; no code or test changes needed.</li>
-<li>2765 - </li>
+<li>2765 - is this just wording cleanup????? I don't think this actually
requires code changes. </li>
<li>2767 - </li>
-<li>2768 - </li>
-<li>2769 - </li>
+<li>2768 - <i>std::any</i></li>
+<li>2769 - <i>std::any</i></li>
</ul>
-<p>Last Updated: 5-Oct-2016</p>
+<p>Last Updated: 10-Oct-2016</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
