On 10/06/19 18:46 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/10/19 2:43 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 02:53, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
Darn it, I had those constexpr lib patches in tree.
Attached are what I just committed to gcc-9 and passes ther
On 6/10/19 2:43 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 02:53, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
Darn it, I had those constexpr lib patches in tree.
Attached are what I just committed to gcc-9 and passes there. Those
std::copy didn't really add anything anyway.
They adde
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 02:53, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Darn it, I had those constexpr lib patches in tree.
> Attached are what I just committed to gcc-9 and passes there. Those
> std::copy didn't really add anything anyway.
They added a test that *i++ = *j++ works, and that
On 6/9/19 6:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10/06/19 00:03 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Ed,
I had supplied the option for gnu++2a by hand and they passed.?? They
were not UNSUPPORTED.
I just added the dg-options (at very top) and reran the testsuite
without fancy tricks (except for gnu++2a).
On 10/06/19 00:03 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Ed,
I had supplied the option for gnu++2a by hand and they passed.?? They
were not UNSUPPORTED.
I just added the dg-options (at very top) and reran the testsuite
without fancy tricks (except for gnu++2a).
I also took out the #if __cplusplus.?? I
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 01:03, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> >>> I had supplied the option for gnu++2a by hand and they passed.?? They
> >>> were not UNSUPPORTED.
> >>>
> >>> I just added the dg-options (at very top) and reran the testsuite
> >>> without fancy tricks (except for gnu++2a).
> >>>
Hi Ed,
>>> I had supplied the option for gnu++2a by hand and they passed.?? They
>>> were not UNSUPPORTED.
>>>
>>> I just added the dg-options (at very top) and reran the testsuite
>>> without fancy tricks (except for gnu++2a).
>>>
>>> I also took out the #if __cplusplus.?? I was just playing arou
On 6/8/19 4:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 08/06/19 12:05 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 6/7/19 11:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...
On 08/06/19 12:05 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 6/7/19 11:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland
<3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM,
On 6/7/19 11:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01
On 07/06/19 16:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 22:40, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ok, third time's a charm.
>
> I was brain dead about the constexpr patch.?? I'm now setting a constexpr
> variable from test() in a caller.
Looks good. Jonathan needs to approve it, though.
> But static_assert is a const
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
Greetings,
Iterators for and are usabe in a constexpr contex
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
> > wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> Iterators for and are usabe in a constexpr context
> >> since C++2017.
>
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
Greetings,
Iterators for and are usabe in a constexpr context
since C++2017.
This just adds a compile test to make sure and check a box for C++20
p0858 - ConstexprIterator require
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Iterators for and are usabe in a constexpr context
> since C++2017.
>
> This just adds a compile test to make sure and check a box for C++20
> p0858 - ConstexprIterator requirements.
Those tests don't use the
17 matches
Mail list logo
