> How big a maintenance burden is it? Is there a way to reduce the burden?
It's actually not *that* big of a maintenance burden because it's mostly just a shallow wrapper around <__hash_table>. What's been frustrating me is that there were *NO TESTS*. So modifying <__hash_table> is a stab in the dark. I checked in a "breathing" tests in r261181. Hopefully that will help a bit. /Eric On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsm...@apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-Feb-10, at 19:10, Marshall Clow <mclow.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via cfe-commits > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm hoping only a year or two (or three...)? > > > > As I pointed out to Eric on IRC, those files have had a "deprecation > warning" every time they are included ... since 2010. > > Yes, anyone that has already transitioned to libc++ has no excuse. They > should just stop using ext/hash_map. > > Unfortunately we also ship this: > > http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/libstdcxx/libstdcxx-104.1/include/c++/4.2.1/ext/hash_map > > ^ It doesn't have any such #warning. Keeping ext/hash_map around makes it > easier to transition people over to libc++. > > How big a maintenance burden is it? Is there a way to reduce the burden?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
