On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 at 13:36, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Here is an update with the alloc ptr specific tests and so fixes.
>
> PR updated:
>
> https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/27
Approved on the forge. Please add PR 57272 to the commit msg and push
to trunk - thanks for all
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 at 14:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, 06:05 François Dumont, wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/12/2024 22:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> > On 04/12/24 19:27 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> I've completed the synchronization with your equivalent PR
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, 06:05 François Dumont, wrote:
>
> On 04/12/2024 22:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 04/12/24 19:27 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I've completed the synchronization with your equivalent PR for
> >> std::list so here is the updated patch.
> >>
> >> PR updated
Hi
Here is an update with the alloc ptr specific tests and so fixes.
PR updated:
https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/27
François
On 09/12/2024 07:05, François Dumont wrote:
On 04/12/2024 22:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 04/12/24 19:27 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I've co
On 04/12/2024 22:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 04/12/24 19:27 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I've completed the synchronization with your equivalent PR for
std::list so here is the updated patch.
PR updated a couple of days ago.
Note that I've started to rework the patch for the same in
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 at 21:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 04/12/24 19:27 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >I've completed the synchronization with your equivalent PR for
> >std::list so here is the updated patch.
> >
> >PR updated a couple of days ago.
> >
> >Note that I've started to re
On 04/12/24 19:27 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I've completed the synchronization with your equivalent PR for
std::list so here is the updated patch.
PR updated a couple of days ago.
Note that I've started to rework the patch for the same in _Hashtable.
Great, thanks.
François
On 3
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 13:52 François Dumont, wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've applied all your comments below and the ones you did on the PR
> directly.
>
> When all new types totally seperated from the legacy types
> _Rb_tree_node_traits is indeed useless.
>
> Regarding _Rb_tree_helpers I got rid of it but m
On 18/11/24 06:57 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
>Hi
>
>Here is a new proposal with all the cleanup regarding _Const_Base_ptr
>that makes support of allocator's fancy pointer type simpler.
>
>Also submitted as PR:
>
>https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/27
>
> libstdc++: Add fancy point
Hi
Here is a new proposal with all the cleanup regarding _Const_Base_ptr
that makes support of allocator's fancy pointer type simpler.
Also submitted as PR:
https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST/pulls/27
libstdc++: Add fancy pointer support in map and set
Support fancy allocator
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 21:34, François Dumont wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2024 19:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 18:30, François Dumont wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21/10/2024 06:56, François Dumont wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 17/10/2024 23:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu
On 04/11/2024 19:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 18:30, François Dumont wrote:
On 21/10/2024 06:56, François Dumont wrote:
On 17/10/2024 23:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 21:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 20:52, François Dumont
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 18:30, François Dumont wrote:
>
>
> On 21/10/2024 06:56, François Dumont wrote:
>
>
> On 17/10/2024 23:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 21:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 20:52, François Dumont wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is an
On 21/10/2024 06:56, François Dumont wrote:
On 17/10/2024 23:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 21:39, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 20:52, François Dumont
wrote:
Here is an updated version that compiles, I think, all your
feedb
On 17/10/2024 23:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 21:39, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 20:52, François Dumont
wrote:
Here is an updated version that compiles, I think, all your
feedbacks. It's much cleaner indeed.
Thanks, I
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 21:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 20:52, François Dumont
> wrote:
>
>> Here is an updated version that compiles, I think, all your feedbacks.
>> It's much cleaner indeed.
>>
>
> Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow.
>
>
>> It's also tested in C++98/17
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 20:52, François Dumont wrote:
> Here is an updated version that compiles, I think, all your feedbacks.
> It's much cleaner indeed.
>
Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow.
> It's also tested in C++98/17/23.
>
> I'm surprised that we do not need to consider potential
> alloca
Here is an updated version that compiles, I think, all your feedbacks.
It's much cleaner indeed.
It's also tested in C++98/17/23.
I'm surprised that we do not need to consider potential
allocator::const_pointer. Is there a plan to deprecate it ?
And if not, should not alloc traits const_poin
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 22:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 18:28, François Dumont wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Here is a proposal to add fancy pointer support in std::_Rb_tree
>> container.
>>
>> As you'll see there are still several usages of
>> pointer_traits<>::pointer_to. The on
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 22:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 18:28, François Dumont wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Here is a proposal to add fancy pointer support in std::_Rb_tree
>> container.
>>
>> As you'll see there are still several usages of
>> pointer_traits<>::pointer_to. The on
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 18:28, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> Here is a proposal to add fancy pointer support in std::_Rb_tree container.
>
> As you'll see there are still several usages of
> pointer_traits<>::pointer_to. The ones in _M_header_ptr() are
> unavoidable.
Yes, those are necessary.
Hi
Here is a proposal to add fancy pointer support in std::_Rb_tree container.
As you'll see there are still several usages of
pointer_traits<>::pointer_to. The ones in _M_header_ptr() are
unavoidable. The ones to extract a node or to return a node to the
allocator are more questionable. Are
22 matches
Mail list logo
