On 12/12/18 15:05 -0500, nick wrote:
On 2018-12-12 10:24 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/12/18 17:17 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:14, nick <xerofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there's an attempt to ascertain that mostly constructors and
> assignment operators need noexcept-fixes,
> because that noexcept-ness is directly trait-detectable.
> That would match my current understanding of the situation for at
> least pair and tuple.
>
Yes that's true. I was also asking about is there a TODO list for the current
release
of gcc 9 as Jonathan mentioned this work is a stage 1 fix or feature and should
wait
until gcc 10 stage 1 so was wondering what work is needed in the current stage
3.
Sorry for the confusion with the previous email and hopefully this makes more
sense,
We don't have a specific TODO list for gcc 9. For general stuff, we have
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LibstdcxxTodo
which is a bit out of date...
I think he's asking about GCC in general, not just libstdc++. The
answer is that fixing bugs is appropriate for stage 3, so pick any
open bugs from Bugzilla.
That's right I was asking about all of gcc. Sorry I thought I CCed the gcc devel
list so no wonder so confused.
You did CC the GCC list but I removed it from the CC because I was
only responding to the part of your email about libstdc++.
I see no reason to use a single thread for "what is libstdc++'s
noexcept policy" and "what EasyHacks are there in the rest of the
compiler". They should be two separate threads.
