ldionne added a comment. LGTM. All comments/questions are just for my education. Other things I did: double-check that you changed all the functions changed by https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2946.
================ Comment at: include/memory:5647 + typename __void_t<typename _Alloc::value_type>::type, + typename __void_t<decltype(_VSTD::declval<_Alloc&>().allocate(size_t(0)))>::type + > ---------------- Sorry -- still not very fluent with how things are done in libc++, but don't we need to guard this based on C++11 at the very least because it's using `decltype`? ================ Comment at: include/string:842 + explicit basic_string(const _Tp& __t, + typename enable_if<__can_be_converted_to_string_view<_CharT, _Traits, _Tp>::value, void>::type* = 0); + ---------------- Is there a reason why you use a different `enable_if` pattern here (as a default argument) and above (as a default template argument)? ================ Comment at: include/string:1646 + class _Allocator = allocator<_CharT>, + class = typename enable_if<__is_allocator<_Allocator>::value, void>::type + > ---------------- You don't need to specify the `void` in `enable_if<__is_allocator, void>::type`. There's no harm in specifying it, but I'm curious to know if there's a reason for it? ================ Comment at: include/string:1779 template <class _CharT, class _Traits, class _Allocator> -inline _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY +template <class> basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Allocator>::basic_string(const _CharT* __s) ---------------- Wow, it's terrible that we need to write this. https://reviews.llvm.org/D48616 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
