mclow.lists marked 2 inline comments as done.
mclow.lists added inline comments.
================
Comment at: libcxx/include/bit:199
+ !is_same_v<remove_cv_t<_Tp>, char32_t>
+ > {};
+
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Given how heavily the code controlled by this trait depends on
> `numeric_limits<_Tp>`, would it make sense to add something in here about how
> that specialization should exist?
>
> I agree with @EricWF's earlier comment: I can't think of any types that would
> satisfy `(!is_integral_v<_Tp>) && is_unsigned_v<_Tp>`. (But just TIL that
> the signedness of `wchar_t` is implementation-defined.)
`is_unsigned_v<Bignum>` could be true, but `is_integral_v<Bignum>` is not ever
true.
================
Comment at: libcxx/include/bit:211
+ ? __t
+ : (__t << (__cnt % __dig)) | (__t >> (__dig - (__cnt % __dig)));
+}
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> No sane compiler would actually generate three `mod` operations for the three
> instances of repeated subexpression `__cnt % __dig`, would they?
At `-O0`? Sure it would.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51262/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51262
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
