https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With the removal of if constexpr we would unconditionally instantiate
__relocate_a, which could fail ... but only in cases like a deleted move
constructor. This avoids that instantiation, so it doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> So I guess I could revert r268537 then.
I don't think it was worth spending time on in the first place, but now that
you have written it, it isn't as bad as I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, so it does.
So I guess I could revert r268537 then. The downstream package where this
caused a build failure was already changed to stop (foolishly) deleting move
ctors, so it's not causing any more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Looking at the standard, the requirements for the push_back call in comment
> 0 are that X is Cpp17CopyInsertable into vector, which is true. The check
> whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Feb 5 14:45:00 2019
New Revision: 268537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268537=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89130 restore support for non-MoveConstructible types
The changes to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
We already discussed this
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2018-09/msg7.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
However, the code that this relocation replaces uses move_if_noexcept which is
also incorrect for weird allocators. So maybe those cases are already
incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo
