On 03/12/20 18:14 +0100, Daniel Krügler via Libstdc++ wrote:
Am Do., 3. Dez. 2020 um 18:10 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely via
Libstdc++ :
[..]
>>Ok to commit ?
>
>Yes, this is a nice simplification, thanks.
This broke the C++11 constexpr support in std::array. Fixed with this
patch. Tested x86
Am Do., 3. Dez. 2020 um 18:10 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely via
Libstdc++ :
>
[..]
> >>Ok to commit ?
> >
> >Yes, this is a nice simplification, thanks.
>
> This broke the C++11 constexpr support in std::array. Fixed with this
> patch. Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
Wouldn't a transformati
On 09/11/20 13:07 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 08/11/20 15:27 +0100, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
Following a recent fix on std::array this test started to fail in
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
FAIL: 23_containers/array/comparison_operators/96851.cc (test for
excess errors)
Rather than
On 08/11/20 15:27 +0100, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
Following a recent fix on std::array this test started to fail in
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
FAIL: 23_containers/array/comparison_operators/96851.cc (test for
excess errors)
Rather than fixing it and now that __glibcxx_assert is conste
Following a recent fix on std::array this test started to fail in
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
FAIL: 23_containers/array/comparison_operators/96851.cc (test for excess
errors)
Rather than fixing it and now that __glibcxx_assert is constexpr
compatible I would like to propose to simply remove __gnu_d
