On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
"For __relocate_a_1, I should also test if copying, ++ and != are noexcept,
but I wanted to ask first because there might be restrictions on what
iterators are allowed to do, even if I didn't see them."
I decided to postpone thinking about that :-)
On 22/11/18 19:10 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 26/10/18 14:02 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 26/10/18 14:02 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h(revision 265522)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/
On 26/10/18 14:02 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h(revision 265522)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h(working copy)
@@ -59,2
ping?
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
here are some tweaks so that I can usefully mark deque as trivially
relocatable. It includes more noexcept(auto) madness. For __relocate_a_1, I
should also test if copying, ++ and != are noexcept, but I wanted to ask
first because there m
Hello,
here are some tweaks so that I can usefully mark deque as trivially
relocatable. It includes more noexcept(auto) madness. For __relocate_a_1,
I should also test if copying, ++ and != are noexcept, but I wanted to ask
first because there might be restrictions on what iterators are allowe