On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 08:56, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > I think the __throw_bad_alloc() and __throw_bad_array_new_length()
> > functions should always be rare, so marking them cold seems fine (users who
> > define their own allocators that want to throw bad_alloc "often" will
> > probably throw it
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 08:56, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > I think the __throw_bad_alloc() and __throw_bad_array_new_length()
> > functions should always be rare, so marking them cold seems fine (users
> who
> > define their own allocators that want to throw bad_alloc "often" will
> > probably throw it
> I think the __throw_bad_alloc() and __throw_bad_array_new_length()
> functions should always be rare, so marking them cold seems fine (users who
> define their own allocators that want to throw bad_alloc "often" will
> probably throw it directly, they shouldn't be using our __throw_bad_alloc()
>
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 at 17:44, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > I intend to push this to trunk once testing finishes.
> >
> > I generated the diff with -b so the whitespace changes aren't shown,
> > because there was some re-indenting that makes the diff look larger than
> > it really is.
> >
> > Honza, I do
> I intend to push this to trunk once testing finishes.
>
> I generated the diff with -b so the whitespace changes aren't shown,
> because there was some re-indenting that makes the diff look larger than
> it really is.
>
> Honza, I don't think this is likely to make much difference for the PR
>
I intend to push this to trunk once testing finishes.
I generated the diff with -b so the whitespace changes aren't shown,
because there was some re-indenting that makes the diff look larger than
it really is.
Honza, I don't think this is likely to make much difference for the PR
110287 testcases
