On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 19:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 6/5/19 1:29 PM, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> > Ack. Amended change log is below. Changes are :
> > * changed C++ -> c++
> > * fixed the name of added test
> >
> > There are no changes in the di
Ack. Amended change log is below. Changes are :
* changed C++ -> c++
* fixed the name of added test
There are no changes in the diff, but I attached it to this e-mail for
reference.
Thanks,
Nina
2019-06-04 Nina Dinka Ranns
gcc/cp
PR c++/63149
* pt.c (listify_autos): Use non
yes, I forgot to attach the latest patch. :)
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 10:24, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
>
> Hi both,
> Addressing all comments in this e-mail, as some are duplicate.
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 20:45, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On
Hi both,
Addressing all comments in this e-mail, as some are duplicate.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 20:45, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 04/06/19 21:26, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
>
> Good point, dg-do compile is sufficient to demonstrate the issue.
>
> I agree.
>
&g
Good point, dg-do compile is sufficient to demonstrate the issue.
Amended, new patch attached.
Thanks,
Nina
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 17:53, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 04/06/19 18:36, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> > +// Test for PR63149
> > +// { dg-do run { target c+
Tested on Linux x86_64
2019-06-04 Nina Dinka Ranns
gcc/cp
PR c++/63149
* pt.c (listify_autos): use non cv qualified auto_node in
std::initializer_list
testsuite/
PR c++/63149
* g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist-deduce.C: New
Index: gcc/cp/pt.c
Tested on Linux x86_64
basic_string spurious use of a default constructible allocator - LWG2788
2019-05-27 Nina Dinka Ranns
basic_string spurious use of a default constructible allocator - LWG2788
* bits/basic_string.tcc:
(_M_replace_dispatch()): string temporary now
That was fast :)
I’ll check the changelog for future reference.
Thanks,
Nina
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 16:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 14/05/19 15:43 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >Tested on Linux x86_64
> >nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
> >
> >2
Tested on Linux x86_64
nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
2019-05-14 Nina Dinka Ranns
nonesuch is insufficiently useless (lwg2996)
* include/std/type_traits
struct __nonesuch: added private base class to make __nonesuch
not an aggregate and removed deleted
Tested on Linux x86_64
Inconsistency wrt Allocators in basic_string assignment vs.
basic_string::assign (LWG2579)
2019-05-09 Nina Dinka Ranns
Inconsistency wrt Allocators in basic_string assignment vs.
basic_string::assign (LWG2579)
* include/bits/basic_string.h
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 12:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> I can remove that #if and test and commit the result for you though,
> no need for another revision of the patch.
Thanks ! :)
Best,
Nina
amp;) as it's still technically
always resulting in an allocator from the first parameter.
2019-05-01 Nina Dinka Ranns
Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent
foroperator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
* include/bits/basic_string.h:
(operator+(basic_string&&
Tested on Linux x86_64
Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent for
operator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
2019-05-01 Nina Dinka Ranns
Make stateful allocator propagation more consistent for
operator+(basic_string) (P1165R1)
* include/bits/basic_string.tcc
noted, thanks :)
Best,
Nina
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 22:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 28/04/19 22:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >On 29/04/19 00:18 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> >>On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>>
> >>
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 21:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 23/04/19 18:43 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 21:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/04/19 17:59 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 16
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 21:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 16/04/19 17:59 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >> >Tested on Linux-PPC64
&g
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >Tested on Linux-PPC64
> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
>
> Thanks, Nina!
>
> This looks great, although as I think Ville h
Tested on Linux-PPC64
Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
2019-04-13 Nina Dinka Ranns
Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple:
(tuple()): Add noexcept-specification.
(tuple(const
18 matches
Mail list logo
