Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/vector:298
+__copy_construct_forward(_Alloc& __a, _Iter __begin1, _Iter __end1,
+ _Ptr& __begin2, _CopyViaMemcpy)
+{
----------------
vsapsai wrote:
> Why does this function use `_CopyViaMemcpy` and not `false_type` like other
> functions?
Oops, that's totally cruft left over from an earlier revision. Fixed!
================
Comment at: include/vector:300
+{
+ using _Alloc_traits = allocator_traits<_Alloc>;
+ for (; __begin1 != __end1; ++__begin1, (void)++__begin2)
----------------
vsapsai wrote:
> Have you checked why `using` is accepted in C++03 mode? The tests are passing
> but I expected a compiler warning and didn't investigate further.
I talked with Glen Fernandes about this on Slack the other day. I think the
deal is that `make check-cxx` runs only the `-std=c++2a` tests, and if you want
`-std=c++03` you have to run them manually with `llvm-lit --param=-std=c++03
-sv path/to/tests`. Which of course I didn't do. :)
If there's a more foolproof way of automatically testing libc++ in *all*
compiler modes, I'd like to know about it.
Fixed!
================
Comment at: include/vector:542
+template<class _Tp, class _Allocator>
+struct __vector_copy_via_memcpy : integral_constant<bool,
+ (is_same<_Allocator, allocator<_Tp> >::value ||
!__has_construct<_Allocator, _Tp*, _Tp>::value) &&
----------------
vsapsai wrote:
> I think the name `__vector_constructable_via_memcpy` better reflects the
> meaning. It detects cases when individual element construction can be safely
> replaced with memcpy, so it feels more about construct than about copy. And
> `copy_via_memcpy` is too imperative as for me, not really conveying it has
> boolean semantic.
> `copy_via_memcpy` is too imperative for me
I see your point. However, for background... in my other branch, this trait is
joined by two companions:
```
struct __vector_relocate_via_memcpy
struct __vector_destroy_via_noop
```
So I'd like a naming scheme that fits all three use-cases comfortably.
How about just adding the word "should"?
`__vector_should_construct_via_memcpy`, `__vector_should_destroy_via_noop`,
etc? Would that sufficiently address the "too imperative" issue?
================
Comment at: include/vector:1015
{
+ typedef typename __vector_copy_via_memcpy<_Tp, _Allocator>::type
__copy_via_memcpy;
__annotate_delete();
----------------
vsapsai wrote:
> It's not immediately obvious why there is no check like
> `is_same<_ForwardIterator, _Tp*>` here. My guess is that we are using
> variables like `this->__end_`, `v.__begin_` that we know are pointers. Don't
> think it's really a problem and not suggesting any changes, decided to
> mention it's a little bit tricky to understand.
Your guess is 100% correct, AFAIK. All we're doing here is copying from one
`__split_buffer` to another, so both sides are always a contiguous range.
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49317
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
