--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-07 22:32
---
Done.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 22:31 ---
Subject: Bug 45549
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 7 22:30:33 2010
New Revision: 163977
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163977
Log:
2010-09-07 Paolo Carlini
Marc Glisse
P
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-07 14:59
---
I think we should apply it and see how it goes. I'm thinking that after all we
are not risking much: the class is empty anyway (in terms of ABI) and we are
not risking rejecting valid iterators, only the other
--- Comment #11 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-09-06
20:48 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The aforementioned variant, again tested x86_64-linux
Wow, cool!
Sorry, I really didn't mean to give you more work...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45549
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-06 20:36
---
Created an attachment (id=21716)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21716&action=view)
The aforementioned variant, again tested x86_64-linux
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #9 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-09-06 17:48
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Draft patch, tested x86_64-linux
Nice. Just to confirm, that's indeed what I had in mind, except that I was
going to rename __is_iterator_helper to __has_iterator_category and move
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-06 17:08
---
Created an attachment (id=21713)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21713&action=view)
Draft patch, tested x86_64-linux
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45549
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-06 12:32
---
Me, me ;) But, to be clear, your help here and elsewhere would be more than
welcome. If there is something I can do about the paperwork, just let me know!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=455
--- Comment #6 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-09-06 12:21
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> preparing a small prototype, using the hierarchy, attach it here
Just to make sure, does that mean you are writing the prototype, or do you want
me to? (my employer started the ass
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-06 11:42
---
Nice that we agree on many points. Anyway, my plan would be (I cannot resist ;)
preparing a small prototype, using the hierarchy, attach it here, and wait for
Jon' opinion. Then we can make the final decision..
--- Comment #4 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-09-06 11:01
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, I think we are comparing two changes of very different impact and size.
You are right.
> I would argue tha,
> in general, the way we are living the post-concepts era, this i
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-06 09:42
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It doesn't seem less conforming than what is used for
> next/prev.
Well, I think we are comparing two changes of very different impact and size.
In the case of next / prev we have tw
--- Comment #2 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-09-06 07:12
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> __is_iterator can be useful anyway,
Of course, they should use the same helper classes but they can coexist,
although the 2 current uses of is_iterator would disappear. I was perso
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-05 22:22
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> An alternative solution seems to be to use this same machinery in the
> definition of iterator_traits so that when a class T is not a pointer and does
> not provide iterator_category
14 matches
Mail list logo
