On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jeff Chapman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 8:03 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > Why doesn't the std specify the satisfaction nesting limit in the same
> > way as template instantiation? (at least that's what I infer from your
> > question).
>
> I'm not sure why it'
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 8:03 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Why doesn't the std specify the satisfaction nesting limit in the same
> way as template instantiation? (at least that's what I infer from your
> question).
I'm not sure why it's not explicitly listed along with the template
instantiation lim
On 10/29/19 4:46 PM, Jeff Chapman wrote:
Hello,
template
concept Foo = requires(T t) { foo(t); };
template
requires Foo
int foo(T t) { return foo(t); }
Similar cases without concepts are handled with
-ftemplate-depth/max_tinst_depth but satisfaction on trunk does not currently
pass throu
Hello,
I'm seeking feedback on how best to handle deep or infinite recursion in
concept satisfaction. Please let me know if there's a better place to ask.
Recursion in satisfaction can occur a few ways, some of which has been fixed by
moving the point of declaration of a concept to prevent direct
Chris Lattner wrote:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
My impression is that the C++ committee generally feel that exception
specifications are a failed feature, and nobody is particularly
interested in fixing them.
Have you seen this?
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/do
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
My impression is that the C++ committee generally feel that
exception specifications are a failed feature, and nobody is
particularly interested in fixing them.
Hi Jason,
Have you seen this?
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers
Simon Hill wrote:
C) Lastly, it would be nice if someone could indicate whether a
finished and fully functional version of this project would be likely
to make it into the mainline as I have seen requests for its
functionality many times, including on this mailing list, and it has
no downside:
-
Hi Simon
> I recently (on 18/12/2008) mailed a GCC patch to this mailing list,
> but I went on holiday after and have only just arrived back. I
> probably should have asked for some feedback then.
Thanks for taking the time to describe your work in the right amount of
detail. I think you need a
I recently (on 18/12/2008) mailed a GCC patch to this mailing list,
but I went on holiday after and have only just arrived back. I
probably should have asked for some feedback then.
The patch is for the C++ component of GCC. It adds some compiler
warning options. The primary usage of these options
2008/12/8 Simon Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm curious as to why I didn't get any responses to my last posts here
> on 29 / 11 / 2008.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/
>
Hi Simon,
I have found in the past that larger posts do not get many if any
responses. One thing that might help is to ask
Steven Bosscher wrote:
Don't let yourself be discouraged by a lack of response. This is
unfortunately not uncommon in free/open source software projects.
Actually I think this is less common in floss projects. In both
cases, the best driver is a customer with money, but in the case
of FLOSS pr
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Simon Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious as to why I didn't get any responses to my last posts here
> on 29 / 11 / 2008.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/
>
> Is it that there's just no interest in my additions here?
No, both ideas (-Wres and your exte
I'm curious as to why I didn't get any responses to my last posts here
on 29 / 11 / 2008.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/
Is it that there's just no interest in my additions here?
Or that there's so few people here or that they're dedicated to their
own projects?
Or did I somehow not get sent o
13 matches
Mail list logo
