Re: [PATCH] libstdc++/ranges: Prefer using offset-based _CachedPosition

2025-08-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 16:20, Patrick Palka wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2025, Tomasz Kaminski wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 9:51 PM Patrick Palka wrote: > > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > The offset-based partial

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++/ranges: Prefer using offset-based _CachedPosition

2025-08-19 Thread Patrick Palka
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025, Tomasz Kaminski wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 9:51 PM Patrick Palka wrote: > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? > > -- >8 -- > > The offset-based partial specialization of _CachedPosition for > random-access iterator

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++/ranges: Prefer using offset-based _CachedPosition

2025-07-15 Thread Tomasz Kaminski
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 9:51 PM Patrick Palka wrote: > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? > > -- >8 -- > > The offset-based partial specialization of _CachedPosition for > random-access iterators is currently only selected if the offset type is > smaller than the iterator

[PATCH] libstdc++/ranges: Prefer using offset-based _CachedPosition

2025-07-15 Thread Patrick Palka
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? -- >8 -- The offset-based partial specialization of _CachedPosition for random-access iterators is currently only selected if the offset type is smaller than the iterator type. Before r12-1018-g46ed811bcb4b86 this made sense since the m