On 29/07/15 21:55 -0700, Tim Shen wrote:
- typedef _Matcher _MatcherT;
+ typedef _Matcher<_Char_type> _MatcherT;
+ static_assert(sizeof(_MatcherT) == sizeof(_Matcher),
+ "The aussmption std::function has "
+ "the same size as std::function is vio
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Yes, that makes sense. See the code in for how
>> to set the alignment of the buffer appropriately. You can use the size
>> and alignment of std::function even though it will
>> sometime
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Yes, that makes sense. See the code in for how
> to set the alignment of the buffer appropriately. You can use the size
> and alignment of std::function even though it will
> sometimes be a different std::function specialization.
Done.
A
On 29/07/15 01:43 -0700, Tim Shen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Apologies, you have a user-declared move constructor, so assignment is
already deleted. It wouldn't hurt to make that explicit though:
I'm just bad at memorizing when they are implicitly
declared/
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Apologies, you have a user-declared move constructor, so assignment is
> already deleted. It wouldn't hurt to make that explicit though:
I'm just bad at memorizing when they are implicitly
declared/defined/deleted and fully unware of the d
On 28/07/15 16:19 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
What I'm concerned about is assignment. You haven't defined an
assignment operator. If there's an unwanted assignment we could get
undefined behaviour. Please delete the assignment operator if it's not
needed.
Apologies, you have a user-declared m
On 26/07/15 13:38 -0700, Tim Shen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/07/15 00:11 -0700, Tim Shen wrote:
It's not a very necessary refactoring, but simply can't resist. :)
I'm not sure of the ::memcpy calls. It looks not very idiomatic, but
std::copy on char*
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
> It's not a very necessary refactoring, but simply can't resist. :)
>
> I'm not sure of the ::memcpy calls. It looks not very idiomatic, but
> std::copy on char* looks even more weird? :/
>
> Bootstrapped and tested.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Regards
