On 5/12/25 6:02 PM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
Thank you for all the work that you have done by doing the two
implementations and
extensive test cases. I wanted to respond to a few points that I think we
may want
to consider to be bugs in specification, and report them as bugs in
standard.
(Would y
Thank you for all the work that you have done by doing the two
implementations and
extensive test cases. I wanted to respond to a few points that I think we
may want
to consider to be bugs in specification, and report them as bugs in
standard.
(Would you be interested in doing so?)
I do not unders
On 5/9/25 8:16 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
The test I would perform would be :
std::layout_left::mapping> l0;
std::layout_right:mapping> r0;
// stride
bool all_unique()
{
return l0.is_unique();
return r0.is_unique();
}
And we should have only one is_unique symbol.
but with a lot more d
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 11:37 AM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
>
> On 5/6/25 2:47 PM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> > On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 1:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 5/6/25 11:28 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> >>> For better reference, here is illustration of the design I was thinking
On 5/6/25 2:47 PM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 1:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
On 5/6/25 11:28 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
For better reference, here is illustration of the design I was thinking
about:
https://godbolt.org/z/7aTcM8fz4
I would also consider having left_mapping
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 1:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
>
> On 5/6/25 11:28 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> > For better reference, here is illustration of the design I was thinking
> > about:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/7aTcM8fz4
> > I would also consider having left_mapping_base to accept padding, wher
On 5/6/25 1:56 PM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 1:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
On 5/6/25 11:28 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
For better reference, here is illustration of the design I was thinking
about:
https://godbolt.org/z/7aTcM8fz4
I would also consider having left_mappin
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 1:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
>
> On 5/6/25 11:28 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> > For better reference, here is illustration of the design I was thinking
> > about:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/7aTcM8fz4
> > I would also consider having left_mapping_base to accept padding, wher
On 5/6/25 11:28 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
For better reference, here is illustration of the design I was thinking
about:
https://godbolt.org/z/7aTcM8fz4
I would also consider having left_mapping_base to accept padding, where
layout_left uses left_mapping_base.
Thank you for all the help! I
For better reference, here is illustration of the design I was thinking
about:
https://godbolt.org/z/7aTcM8fz4
I would also consider having left_mapping_base to accept padding, where
layout_left uses left_mapping_base.
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 10:48 AM Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> The constructors tha
The constructors that are inside mapping_left, that I think represents
constructors with other extends:
template
mapping_left(const mapping_left_base& other)
: mapping_left_base(other) {}
Can be placed in mapping_left_base, and they will be inherited, as only
copy/move constructors are shadowed.
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 9:20 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/25 9:44 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> > On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 2:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> As we will be landing patches for extends, this wi
On 5/5/25 9:44 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 2:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
Hi,
As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
patch series.
I would prefer, if you could commit per layout, and start wi
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 4:45 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
> Topic: follow up question about operator() for layout_stride.
>
> On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
> > patch series.
> > I would prefer, if you c
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 3:42 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
> This chain discusses changes to `mapping::operator()`. For concrete
> discussion, see below. I have a general question: is there a reason
> other than style to prefer folds over recursion?
>
>
> On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> >
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 2:39 PM Luc Grosheintz
wrote:
>
>
> On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
> > patch series.
> > I would prefer, if you could commit per layout, and start with
> layout_right
> > (def
Topic: follow up question about operator() for layout_stride.
On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
Hi,
As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
patch series.
I would prefer, if you could commit per layout, and start with layout_right
(default)
I try to provid
Topics of this chain:
- computing __fwd_prod and __rev_prod.
- checking representability preconditions.
On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
Hi,
As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
patch series.
I would prefer, if you could commit per layout, and start
This chain discusses changes to `mapping::operator()`. For concrete
discussion, see below. I have a general question: is there a reason
other than style to prefer folds over recursion?
On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
Hi,
As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a
On 4/30/25 7:13 AM, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
Hi,
As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
patch series.
I would prefer, if you could commit per layout, and start with layout_right
(default)
I try to provide prompt responses, so if that works better for you, you can
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:13 AM Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
> patch series.
> I would prefer, if you could commit per layout, and start with
> layout_right (default)
> I try to provide prompt responses, so if that works b
Hi,
As we will be landing patches for extends, this will become a separate
patch series.
I would prefer, if you could commit per layout, and start with layout_right
(default)
I try to provide prompt responses, so if that works better for you, you can
post a patch
only with this layout first, as mo
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 13:56, Luc Grosheintz wrote:
>
> Implements the parts of layout_left that don't depend on any of the
> other layouts.
>
> libstdc++/ChangeLog:
N.B. this needs to be libstdc++-v3/Changelog with "-v3", or the git
hooks will reject it. Similarly in patches 6/10 to 10/10.
Ther
23 matches
Mail list logo
