On 23/09/14 21:58 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 23/09/2014 13:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22/09/14 23:51 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
New patch in a couple of day then.
OK, thanks.
It was faster than I though, here is the fixed patch tested under
Linux x86_64.
[snip]
Ok to commit ?
On 23/09/2014 13:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22/09/14 23:51 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
New patch in a couple of day then.
OK, thanks.
It was faster than I though, here is the fixed patch tested under Linux
x86_64.
2014-09-23 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/29988
* include/bit
On 22/09/14 23:51 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
New patch in a couple of day then.
OK, thanks.
On 11/06/2014 14:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
@@ -514,11 +651,11 @@
{ return this->_M_impl._M_header._M_right; }
_Link_type
- _M_begin() _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
+ _M_begin() const _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
{ return
static_cast<_Link_type>(this->_M_impl._M_header._M_parent); }
What
On 30/07/14 23:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 16/06/2014 22:23, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is another proposal taking into account your remarks except
the one below.
In fact I had no problem with lambda, I just needed to store them
in a variable, lambda do not need to be made mu
Still no feedback regarding this proposal ?
On 19/08/2014 22:14, François Dumont wrote:
Any news regarding this proposal ?
Thanks
François
On 30/07/2014 23:39, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Now that patch on testsuite allocator is in I would like to
reactivate this one. Here it is agai
Any news regarding this proposal ?
Thanks
François
On 30/07/2014 23:39, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Now that patch on testsuite allocator is in I would like to
reactivate this one. Here it is again.
See previous answer below regarding modification of
_M_begin/_M_cbegin.
201
Hi
Now that patch on testsuite allocator is in I would like to
reactivate this one. Here it is again.
See previous answer below regarding modification of
_M_begin/_M_cbegin.
2014-07-30 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/29988
* include/bits/stl_tree.h (_Rb_tree_reu
On 11/06/14 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
For the testsuite allocator I though that for an internal
allocator used in our tests it was ok. But alright, I will make it
better and compatible with SimpleAllocator.
I suppose it's OK for now, and we can change it later if we need it to
wo
For the testsuite allocator I though that for an internal allocator
used in our tests it was ok. But alright, I will make it better and
compatible with SimpleAllocator.
On 11/06/2014 14:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Index: include/bits/stl_tree.h
=
Index: include/bits/stl_tree.h
===
--- include/bits/stl_tree.h (revision 211388)
+++ include/bits/stl_tree.h (working copy)
@@ -330,6 +330,111 @@
const _Rb_tree_const_iterator<_Val>& __y) _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
{
- template
+ template >
Also, there's no need to uglify the name "Alloc" in our testsuite
code, it doesn't have to use the implementation namespace.
class uneq_allocator
-: private uneq_allocator_base
+: private uneq_allocator_base,
+ public _Alloc
{
public:
- type
On 11/06/14 09:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the patch to reuse allocated nodes in the _Rb_tree
implementation like it is done in the _Hashtable. I have associated it
to bugzilla 29988 even if my patch also cover the new C++11 move
assign operator and assignment from initiali
13 matches
Mail list logo
