On 2013-11-01 21:46, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
Il giorno 01/nov/2013, alle ore 21:09, Jonathan Wakely
ha scritto:
Here's the final version of Luc's optional implementation that I'm
committing, tested on x86_64-linux.
Great. Just noticed a minor nit: the fallback __constexpr_addressof appears
On 2013-11-02 19:02, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Can you expand? I think it's just as much inline as the other overload
-- does it need to be different?
The other overload is constexpr thus it's implicitly inline. The fall back is
very simple too and I think it should be declared inline, unless you
On 2013-11-02 23:31, Paolo Carlini wrote:
In general we are very careful with code bloat, but free functions which just
forward to other functions should be definiyely inline, otherwise typically at
widely used optimization levels like -O2 users get suboptimal performance for
no reason. But
On 2013-11-03 12:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 November 2013 09:49, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jonathan Wakely writes:
+ {
+std::experimental::optional o { std::experimental::in_place,
0x1234ABCDF1E2D3C4 };
+auto copy = o;
+VERIFY( copy );
+VERIFY( *copy == 0x1234ABCDF1E2D3C4 )
On 07/04/17 13:29 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ constexpr char __abc[] = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
+ unsigned char __lc = std::tolower(__c);
+ constexpr bool __consecutive = __consecutive_chars(__abc, 26);
+ if _GLIBCXX17_CONSTEXPR (__consecut
