danlark added inline comments.
Herald added a subscriber: ldionne.
================
Comment at: libcxx/trunk/include/__split_buffer:201
__alloc_rr& __a = this->__alloc();
+ pointer __to_be_end = this->__end_;
do
----------------
lichray wrote:
> mclow.lists wrote:
> > I have been asked specifically by the optimizer folks to NOT do things like
> > this in libc++, but rather to file bugs against the optimizer.
> >
> > And I have done so for this exact case:
> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35637
> From the thread I didn't see that the compiler side asked you not to do so.
>
> And I disagree with the view. libc++ shouldn't *wait* for compilers, because
> we don't dictate users' compiler choices. This change doesn't make libc++
> worse to coming compilers, and makes libc++ better on existing compilers, so
> what benefit we get by not approving this?
So, what is the status? Are we waiting for the compiler code-gen fix?
At Yandex we are using patched version like half a year or more.
https://github.com/catboost/catboost/blob/master/contrib/libs/cxxsupp/libcxx/include/vector#L995
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44823
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
