On 20/02/2018 20:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 8 February 2018 at 06:10, François Dumont wrote:
On 06/02/2018 20:16, François Dumont wrote:
On 05/02/2018 18:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply make __aligned_buffer identical
to __aligned_membuf for the versioned-na
On 8 February 2018 at 06:10, François Dumont wrote:
> On 06/02/2018 20:16, François Dumont wrote:
>>
>> On 05/02/2018 18:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply make __aligned_buffer identical
>>> to __aligned_membuf for the versioned-namespace? Then at least the
>>
On 06/02/2018 20:16, François Dumont wrote:
On 05/02/2018 18:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply make __aligned_buffer identical
to __aligned_membuf for the versioned-namespace? Then at least the
conditional code is only in one place.
Yes, __aligned_buffer is indeed
On 05/02/2018 18:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/02/18 22:48 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
As we just bump version namespace it might be interesting to do
the following change now. What do you think ?
I'd rather not make the code harder to read in all those places just
for an optiona
On 01/02/18 22:48 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
As we just bump version namespace it might be interesting to do
the following change now. What do you think ?
I'd rather not make the code harder to read in all those places just
for an optional mode that nobody uses.
Wouldn't it make mo
Hi
As we just bump version namespace it might be interesting to do the
following change now. What do you think ?
François
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/forward_list.h b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/forward_list.h
index 56b3ac5..05abd43 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/forward_
