Quuxplusone added a comment.
> I would prefer if we completed <experimental/memory_resource> (according to
> the current standard, not the LFTS spec), and then moved it.
> Would you be willing to do that instead?
Let me see if I understand. libc++'s `<experimental/memory_resource>` differs
from C++17 `<memory_resource>` in at least these ways:
(A) It's missing `monotonic_buffer_resource` and
`{un,}synchronized_pool_resource`
(B) It's got different semantics around uses-allocator construction because of
https://wg21.link/lwg2969
(C) It's got a different header name
This patch is basically proposing to fix things in the order C-A-B (and fix C
by making copies of everything); you're proposing to fix things in the order
A-B-C (and fix C by moving everything).
I have no objection to fixing A in `<experimental/memory_resource>` if people
think that'd be useful. I didn't do that in this patch simply because I'd
observed other `<experimental/*>` headers already getting replaced with
`#error` messages, and it seemed like any further work on the
`<experimental/*>` headers would have been wasted.
I don't know who's using `<experimental/memory_resource>` today, but in theory
I worry that fixing B in `<experimental/memory_resource>` (before doing C)
might actually break someone's code.
Philosophically as I understand it LWG2969 was a patch against C++17, not a
patch against the TS. If LWG2969 (and incidentally I asked lwgchair to open a
new issue for https://github.com/Quuxplusone/libcxx/commit/54e1a59a ) are
actually supposed to be patches against *both* C++17 *and* the TS, then cool,
yeah, we should fix B in `<experimental/memory_resource>`. Thoughts?
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47090
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
