On 08/07/16 17:38 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/07/16 21:46 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Don't you plan to add it to the testsuite ?
Done with the attached aptch.
Just for completeness, I'm also adding the example from LWG 2164,
which is related.
Tested x86_64, committed to trunk.
On 09/07/16 20:29 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 09/07/16 13:47 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch has caused some new libstdc++ testsuite failures on AIX.
Which patch?
My last patch only added a new test, that can't have caused
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 09/07/16 13:47 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> This patch has caused some new libstdc++ testsuite failures on AIX.
>
>
> Which patch?
>
> My last patch only added a new test, that can't have caused failures
> in unrelated tests.
>
> ht
On 09/07/16 13:47 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch has caused some new libstdc++ testsuite failures on AIX.
Which patch?
My last patch only added a new test, that can't have caused failures
in unrelated tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++-cvs/2016-q3/msg00021.html
FAIL: 23_cont
This patch has caused some new libstdc++ testsuite failures on AIX.
FAIL: 23_containers/list/debug/insert4_neg.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/tmp/20160708/powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/formatter.h:387:7:
error: __gnu_debug::_Error_formatter&
__gnu_debug::_Error_f
On 06/07/16 21:46 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Don't you plan to add it to the testsuite ?
Done with the attached aptch.
On my side I rebase part of my patch to reorganize a little bit code.
I reintroduced _M_realloc_insert which isolates the code of
_M_insert_aux used when we need to reall
On 06/07/16 21:46 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 05/07/2016 12:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 04/07/16 15:55 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm getting nervous about the smart insertion trick to avoid making a
copy, I have a devious testcase in mind which will break with that
change. I'll share
On 05/07/2016 12:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 04/07/16 15:55 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm getting nervous about the smart insertion trick to avoid making a
copy, I have a devious testcase in mind which will break with that
change. I'll share the testcase later today.
Here's a testcase wh
On 02/07/16 08:37 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
I haven't consider in this patch your remark about using allocator to
build instance so don't hesitate to commit what you want and I will
rebase.
Here's what I've committed to trunk.
I'm getting nervous about the smart insertion trick to avoid m
On 01/07/2016 11:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30/06/16 21:51 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 29/06/2016 23:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
iterator
insert(const_iterator __position, value_type&& __x)
{ return emplace(__position, std::move(__x)); }
That's suboptimal, since in the gene
On 01/07/16 10:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30/06/16 21:51 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 29/06/2016 23:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
iterator
insert(const_iterator __position, value_type&& __x)
{ return emplace(__position, std::move(__x)); }
That's suboptimal, since in the gen
On 30/06/16 21:51 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 29/06/2016 23:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
iterator
insert(const_iterator __position, value_type&& __x)
{ return emplace(__position, std::move(__x)); }
That's suboptimal, since in the general case we need an extra
construction for em
On 29/06/2016 23:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/06/16 21:36 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/06/16 21:43 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
As asked here is now a patch to only fix the robustness issue. The
consequence is that it is reverting the latest optimization as,
without smart algo, we
On 29/06/16 21:43 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
I tried those changes too but started having failing tests in
vector/ext_pointer so prefer to not touch that for the moment. I think
the compilation error was coming from the change of begin() +
(__position - cbegin()) into begin() + __n because o
On 29/06/16 21:36 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/06/16 21:43 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
As asked here is now a patch to only fix the robustness issue. The
consequence is that it is reverting the latest optimization as,
without smart algo, we always need to do a copy to protect against
On 29/06/16 21:43 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
As asked here is now a patch to only fix the robustness issue. The
consequence is that it is reverting the latest optimization as,
without smart algo, we always need to do a copy to protect against
insertion of values contained in the vector as sh
On 29/06/2016 11:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/06/16 21:59 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
@@ -303,16 +301,20 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
emplace(const_iterator __position, _Args&&... __args)
{
const size_type __n = __position - begin();
It looks like this should use
Hi,
On 29/06/2016 12:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/06/16 11:35 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 29/06/2016 10:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/06/16 21:59 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
+ if (_M_data_ptr(__position.base()) <= __ptr
+ && __ptr < _M_data_ptr(this->_M_impl._M_fini
On 29/06/16 11:35 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 29/06/2016 10:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/06/16 21:59 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
+ if (_M_data_ptr(__position.base()) <= __ptr
+ && __ptr < _M_data_ptr(this->_M_impl._M_finish - 1))
This is undefined behaviour. If the obj
Hi,
On 29/06/2016 10:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/06/16 21:59 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
+ if (_M_data_ptr(__position.base()) <= __ptr
+ && __ptr < _M_data_ptr(this->_M_impl._M_finish - 1))
This is undefined behaviour. If the object is not contained in the
vector then you can
On 28/06/16 21:59 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
@@ -303,16 +301,20 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
emplace(const_iterator __position, _Args&&... __args)
{
const size_type __n = __position - begin();
It looks like this should use __position - cbegin(), to avoid an
impli
On 28/06/16 21:59 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
template
void
vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::
-_M_insert_aux(iterator __position, const _Tp& __x)
+_M_insert_value_aux(iterator __position, const _Tp& __x)
#endif
{
- if (this->_M_impl._M_finish != this->_M_impl._M_end_of_storage)
+
22 matches
Mail list logo
