On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 17/05/18 16:10 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 15/05/18 07:30 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
>>>
>>> Here it is again even more simplified. Should I backport the Debug mode
>>> fix to 8 branch ?
>>
>>
>> Yes, please do backport the
On 17/05/18 16:10 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/05/18 07:30 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Here it is again even more simplified. Should I backport the Debug
mode fix to 8 branch ?
Yes, please do backport the include/debug/* changes.
* include/bits/stl_tree.h
(_Rb_tree_impl(_Rb
On 15/05/18 07:30 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Here it is again even more simplified. Should I backport the Debug
mode fix to 8 branch ?
Yes, please do backport the include/debug/* changes.
* include/bits/stl_tree.h
(_Rb_tree_impl(_Rb_tree_impl&&, _Node_allocator&&)): New.
(_Rb_
On 11/05/2018 14:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/05/18 16:06 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Here is the rework of this patch.
On 02/05/2018 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
There's no changelog entry with the patch, so to recap, the changes
are:
- noexcept specifications are automatically deduc
On 06/05/18 16:06 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Here is the rework of this patch.
On 02/05/2018 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
There's no changelog entry with the patch, so to recap, the changes
are:
- noexcept specifications are automatically deduced instead of being
stated explicitly.
I s
Here is the rework of this patch.
On 02/05/2018 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
There's no changelog entry with the patch, so to recap, the changes
are:
- noexcept specifications are automatically deduced instead of being
stated explicitly.
I simplified this part, it is not deduced anymore ex
On 02/05/2018 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/05/18 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
If not told otherwise I'll commit attached patch tomorrow.
Please do not commit it, see below.
Already discussed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-10/msg00053.html
There's no changelo
On 01/05/18 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
If not told otherwise I'll commit attached patch tomorrow.
Please do not commit it, see below.
Already discussed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-10/msg00053.html
There's no changelog entry with the patch, so to recap, the chan
On 02/05/18 00:47 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 May 2018 at 00:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:23:27AM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 1 May 2018 at 22:56, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> If not told otherwise I'll commit attached patch tomorrow.
Commit it wher
On 2 May 2018 at 00:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:23:27AM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>> On 1 May 2018 at 22:56, François Dumont wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > If not told otherwise I'll commit attached patch tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> Commit it where? The 8.1 release is not out yet
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:23:27AM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 1 May 2018 at 22:56, François Dumont wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > If not told otherwise I'll commit attached patch tomorrow.
>
>
> Commit it where? The 8.1 release is not out yet, so we shouldn't be
> pushing new stuff onto trunk y
On 1 May 2018 at 22:56, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> If not told otherwise I'll commit attached patch tomorrow.
Commit it where? The 8.1 release is not out yet, so we shouldn't be
pushing new stuff onto trunk yet.
Nor should we push such stuff into the release branch.
Hi
If not told otherwise I'll commit attached patch tomorrow.
Already discussed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-10/msg00053.html
François
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_map.h b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_map.h
index a4a026e..2b8fd27 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include
Hi
Any feedback regarding this patch ?
Thanks,
François
On 14/09/2017 22:04, François Dumont wrote:
I realized there was no test on the noexcept qualification of the move
constructor with allocator.
I added some and found out that patch was missing a noexcept
qualification at _Rb_tree l
I realized there was no test on the noexcept qualification of the move
constructor with allocator.
I added some and found out that patch was missing a noexcept
qualification at _Rb_tree level.
Here is the updated patch fully tested, ok to commit ?
François
On 13/09/2017 21:57, François Dum
On 08/09/2017 17:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Since we know __a == __x.get_allocator() we could just do:
_Rb_tree(_Rb_tree&& __x, _Node_allocator&&, true_type)
noexcept(is_nothrow_move_constructible<_Rb_tree_impl<_Compare>>::value)
: _M_impl(std::move(__x._M_impl))
{ }
This means
On 28/08/17 21:12 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the always equal allocator optimization for associative
containers.
Tested under Linux x86_64.
* include/bits/stl_tree.h
(_Rb_tree_impl(_Rb_tree_impl&&, _Node_allocator&&)): New.
(_Rb_tree(_Rb_tree&&, _Node_allocator&&
Hi
Here is the always equal allocator optimization for associative
containers.
Tested under Linux x86_64.
* include/bits/stl_tree.h
(_Rb_tree_impl(_Rb_tree_impl&&, _Node_allocator&&)): New.
(_Rb_tree(_Rb_tree&&, _Node_allocator&&, std::true_type)): New.
(_Rb_tree(_Rb_t
18 matches
Mail list logo
