mclow.lists marked 7 inline comments as done.
mclow.lists added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/numeric:154
+ return reduce(__first, __last,
+ typename iterator_traits<_InputIterator>::value_type{},
_VSTD::plus<>());
+}
----------------
wash wrote:
> In the spec, this overload of `reduce` is described as equivalent to `return
> reduce(std::forward<ExecutionPolicy>(exec), first, last, typename
> iterator_traits<ForwardIterator>::value_type{});`. The overload that it
> calls (the three argument version that omits a binary operation) just
> forwards to the four-argument reduce, adding the `plus<>()` argument.
>
> Is there a reason you wanted to avoid the extra layer of function call
> indirection (it should be inlined and optimized away, right)? What you have
> seems perfectly fine, I'm just curious though.
Nah. Just eager on the copy/paste.
================
Comment at:
test/std/numerics/numeric.ops/transform.reduce/transform_reduce_iter_iter_init_bop_uop.pass.cpp:36
+ _NOEXCEPT_(noexcept(_VSTD::forward<_Tp>(__x)))
+ -> decltype (_VSTD::forward<_Tp>(__x))
+ { return _VSTD::forward<_Tp>(__x); }
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Maybe use `decltype(auto)` here?
I copied this formulation from `<functional>` where we use it all over the
place ;-)
(but that's because we support old standards)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33997
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
