http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #19 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-03 22:25:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 3 22:25:24 2011
New Revision: 173344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173344
Log:
2011-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
14:13:37 UTC ---
I'm under the impression that later today we can resolve this: Howard and
Daniel agree on the reflector that we want something similar to the clear() +
swap semantics we have in the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
11:18:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I think I see what you mean, but actually, I'm not sure that this kind of
> sophistication would be consistent with the rationale of LWG 675: if I
It de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
10:44:41 UTC ---
I'm also thinking that in terms of complexity, in this entire discussion we are
just shuffling work around in time. In LWG 675 it is established that clearing
first increases the comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
10:25:12 UTC ---
I'm wondering if, waiting for some possible feedback from the Committee, we
shouldn't instead simply swap the data members and disregard LWG 675 for now.
Arguably, for std::valarray,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
10:11:48 UTC ---
I think I see what you mean, but actually, I'm not sure that this kind of
sophistication would be consistent with the rationale of LWG 675: if I
understand it correctly, we really wan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
09:55:45 UTC ---
It would be possible to make it constant complexity, by delaying
destruction+deallocation of the old elements of *this until its destructor runs
(at which point "an implementation m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
09:27:24 UTC ---
Agreed, thanks for the feedback, let's implement it like this, for now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
09:03:22 UTC ---
Good point. I think the requirement for constant complexity should have been
removed by LWG 675. Pending clarification from the committee I think I would
implement it with the usua
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
00:52:11 UTC ---
And I think that in the FDIS we have a defect for the move assignment operator:
it is supposed to be both noexcept and constant complexity and I don't see how
those can be achieved giv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #7 from ssameer+gcc at gmail dot com 2011-05-03 00:01:05 UTC ---
Thanks guys ! I'll look forward to the changes in gcc 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-02
23:50:50 UTC ---
Thanks Jon!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-02
23:50:03 UTC ---
The status table is right on trunk now, I'll update it again when move and swap
operations are added.
I should backport the updated status table to the 4.6 branch, as the C++0x
stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-02
23:46:28 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 2 23:46:24 2011
New Revision: 173278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173278
Log:
2011-05-03 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #1 from ssameer+gcc at gmail dot com 2011-05-02 22:37:36 UTC ---
These functions are present in the standard library that comes with Visual C++
2010.
20 matches
Mail list logo
