On 21/10/16 13:57 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/10/16 15:33 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 02:58:26PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:44:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/10/16 14:36 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:
On 21/10/16 15:33 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 02:58:26PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:44:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21/10/16 14:36 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53:49PM -0400, Ryan Burn wrote:
> > > Are exce
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 02:58:26PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:44:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 21/10/16 14:36 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53:49PM -0400, Ryan Burn wrote:
> > > > Are exception classes required to support emplac
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:44:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21/10/16 14:36 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53:49PM -0400, Ryan Burn wrote:
> > > Are exception classes required to support emplace new construction
> > > like that? With this change, Intel's TBB libr
On 21/10/16 12:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/10/16 14:36 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53:49PM -0400, Ryan Burn wrote:
Are exception classes required to support emplace new construction
like that? With this change, Intel's TBB library no longer compiles
because
On 21/10/16 14:36 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53:49PM -0400, Ryan Burn wrote:
Are exception classes required to support emplace new construction
like that? With this change, Intel's TBB library no longer compiles
because its exception class declares it's own new operato
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53:49PM -0400, Ryan Burn wrote:
> Are exception classes required to support emplace new construction
> like that? With this change, Intel's TBB library no longer compiles
> because its exception class declares it's own new operator (see
> https://github.com/wjakob/tbb/blo
Are exception classes required to support emplace new construction
like that? With this change, Intel's TBB library no longer compiles
because its exception class declares it's own new operator (see
https://github.com/wjakob/tbb/blob/master/include/tbb/tbb_exception.h):
class tbb_exception : publ
On 21/08/16 15:20 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Jonathan,
Is this version OK with you?
I've committed the attached version, which just adds some whitespace
and fixes the testsuite_abi.cc test.
Thanks very much for the improvement to the code.
commit f80c0cc401fc34b424662286bedc559d0e2bb243
Auth
Jonathan,
Is this version OK with you?
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:49:24AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Instead of throwing an exception allocate its memory and initialize it
> explicitly. Makes std::make_exception_ptr more efficient since no stack
> unwinding is needed.
>
> v1->v2:
> - fix inde
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:56:02AM +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
> 2016-08-05 6:49 GMT+02:00 Gleb Natapov :
> > Instead of throwing an exception allocate its memory and initialize it
> > explicitly. Makes std::make_exception_ptr more efficient since no stack
> > unwinding is needed.
>
> [..]
>
> >
2016-08-05 6:49 GMT+02:00 Gleb Natapov :
> Instead of throwing an exception allocate its memory and initialize it
> explicitly. Makes std::make_exception_ptr more efficient since no stack
> unwinding is needed.
[..]
> +#ifndef _CXXABI_INIT_EXCEPTION_H
> +#define _CXXABI_INIT_EXCEPTION_H 1
> +
> +
Instead of throwing an exception allocate its memory and initialize it
explicitly. Makes std::make_exception_ptr more efficient since no stack
unwinding is needed.
v1->v2:
- fix indentation
- drop static from __dest_thunk
- use static_cast instead of reinterpret_cast
* libsupc++/exception (std
13 matches
Mail list logo
