On 9/23/13 3:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Sorry.
You are welcome. Thanks for the time you are spending on these details!
Paolo.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi again,
It is funny that with fully dynamic strings, the copy constructor is
"better" than the move constructor: faster, doesn't throw, etc. I think we
should remove the move constructor in that case, or at least make it act
the same as the copy con
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 9/23/13 10:55 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch was tested on x86_64 with a bootstrap and a simple make -k
check, without regression. Note that it doesn't completely fix 56166, it
merely admits that we may currently throw and avoids turning
Hi,
On 9/23/13 2:23 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 9/23/13 10:55 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch was tested on x86_64 with a bootstrap and a simple make
-k check, without regression. Note that it doesn't completely fix
56166, it
merely admits
Hi again,
It is funny that with fully dynamic strings, the copy constructor is
"better" than the move constructor: faster, doesn't throw, etc. I
think we should remove the move constructor in that case, or at least
make it act the same as the copy constructor. I didn't mark the copy
constructo
On 9/23/13 10:55 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch was tested on x86_64 with a bootstrap and a simple make -k
check, without regression. Note that it doesn't completely fix 56166, it
merely admits that we may currently throw and avoids turning that into
std::terminate.
Of course.
Patc
Hello,
this patch was tested on x86_64 with a bootstrap and a simple make -k
check, without regression. Note that it doesn't completely fix 56166, it
merely admits that we may currently throw and avoids turning that into
std::terminate.
2013-09-24 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/58338
