On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Richard Smith wrote:
Would there be support for this idea?
I thought it was a big NO-NO, so I am happy to hear it isn't.
In off-line discussion with John McCall, we came up with the following list
of potential changes that might be made (sorry if I forgot any):
Maybe revisit some old issues?
A-9 has the comment: "this won't happen often", but it affects
sizeof(tuple<tuple<int>>) in libstdc++. Hmm, no, it doesn't, but it would
if they swapped the order of their bases (currently for
tuple<int,unsigned> they store the unsigned before the int). Of the 3
permutations tuple<int,E,E>, tuple<E,int,E> and tuple<E,E,int> where E is
empty, only 1 has a small size, whereas I believe at most 1 should be
large (0 would be great). And that's not the only place I've hit this.
A-5: gcc and HP seemed to find it hard to implement at the time. Would
that still be the case? (it may need to mention move constructors now)
I seem to be missing the detail that makes it so complicated.
--
Marc Glisse
_______________________________________________
cxx-abi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
