On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 08:03:05PM -0700, Nikolas Klauser wrote:
> Thanks for the answers!
>
> There are a few really interesting extensions that I would like to use:
>
> - inline variables
> - variable templates
> - `if constexpr`
> - fold expressions
> - conditional explicit
> - static operator
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 14:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 20:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 20:20, Jason Merrill via Libstdc++
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 12:02 PM Nikolas Klauser
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone!
> > > >
> >
GCC13, c++, cygwin 64:
auto x = 9223372036854775808L
gives the warning: "integer constant is so large that it is unsigned"
But actually the type is signed __int128:
std::cout << x;
gives the error: "ambiguous overload for ‘operator<<’ (operand types are
‘std::ostream’ {aka ‘std::basic_ostre
Am Montag, dem 10.07.2023 um 22:16 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar via Gcc:
> On 7/10/23 22:14, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > [CC += Andrew]
> >
> > Hi Xi, Andrew,
> >
> > On 7/10/23 20:41, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > > Maybe we should have a weaker version of nonnull which only performs the
> > > diagno
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 10:09, Helmut Zeisel via Gcc wrote:
>
> GCC13, c++, cygwin 64:
>
> auto x = 9223372036854775808L
>
> gives the warning: "integer constant is so large that it is unsigned"
>
> But actually the type is signed __int128:
>
> std::cout << x;
>
> gives the error: "ambiguous overlo
Luckily most of these aren’t problems for libc++. We only support the latest
GCC. We can only use `if constexpr` in C++11, but that is already a win I think.
Nikolas
> On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 08:03:05PM -0700, Nikolas Klauser wrote:
>> Than
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 17:04, Nikolas Klauser wrote:
>
> Luckily most of these aren’t problems for libc++. We only support the latest
> GCC. We can only use `if constexpr` in C++11, but that is already a win I
> think.
Can you use it in C++11 though? The body of a constexpr function must
be a sin
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 17:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 17:04, Nikolas Klauser wrote:
> >
> > Luckily most of these aren’t problems for libc++. We only support the
> > latest GCC. We can only use `if constexpr` in C++11, but that is already a
> > win I think.
>
> Can you use
Yes, Clang allows it. Most importantly though: you don’t have to be in a
constexpr function for `if constexpr` to be useful. e.g. the Algorithms aren’t
constexpr until C++20, but a lot of them have overloads for improving the
algorithm based on the iterator category. Having `if constexpr` there
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any ERRORs in the .log nor any of the
debug print statements which I’ve scattered within proc dg-require-python-h
when run. I’ve attached the WIP below; thank you! Please note that in this
version of the patch, I’ve removed the other (non Python) test case
On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 12:51 -0400, Eric Feng wrote:
> Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any ERRORs in the .log nor
> any of the debug print statements which I’ve scattered within proc
> dg-require-python-h when run. I’ve attached the WIP below; thank you!
> Please note that in this version of
On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 12:51 -0400, Eric Feng wrote:
> Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any ERRORs in the .log nor
> any of the debug print statements which I’ve scattered within proc
> dg-require-python-h when run. I’ve attached the WIP below; thank you!
> Please note that in this version of
I present a novel calling convention named "wincall" designed specifically for
GCC. This convention is accompanied by the [[__gnu__::__wincall__]] attribute
and caters to the latest Intel APX instructions on Windows systems, excluding
Linux, BSD, and similar platforms.
Motivation:
The current
(bionic maintainer here, mostly by accident...)
yeah, we tried the GCC attributes once before with _disastrous_
results (because GCC saw it as an excuse to delete explicit null
checks, it broke all kinds of things). the clang attributes are
"better" in that they don't confuse two entirely separate
On 2023-08-08 20:14, enh wrote:
(bionic maintainer here, mostly by accident...)
yeah, we tried the GCC attributes once before with _disastrous_
results (because GCC saw it as an excuse to delete explicit null
checks, it broke all kinds of things). the clang attributes are
AFAICT based on earli
15 matches
Mail list logo
