Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement the missing bits of LWG 2769

2018-02-27 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 27/02/18 10:13 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: On 26 February 2018 at 22:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/02/18 23:22 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: Tested partially on Linux-x64, will test with the full suite on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk and the gcc-7 branch? This is theoretically a brea

Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement the missing bits of LWG 2769

2018-02-27 Thread Ville Voutilainen
On 26 February 2018 at 22:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 25/02/18 23:22 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> >> Tested partially on Linux-x64, will test with the full suite on >> Linux-PPC64. >> Ok for trunk and the gcc-7 branch? This is theoretically a breaking change > This template argument shou

Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement the missing bits of LWG 2769

2018-02-26 Thread Ville Voutilainen
On 26 February 2018 at 22:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > But those are just stylistic issues, the technical side of the patch > is fine. I had to look up why we had two overloads for any_cast(any&&) > and that seems to be a leftover from experimental::any, so thanks for > cleaning that up too. It

Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement the missing bits of LWG 2769

2018-02-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 25/02/18 23:22 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: Tested partially on Linux-x64, will test with the full suite on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk and the gcc-7 branch? This is theoretically a breaking change for the branch, but the committee has decided that they don't want the support for copyable-but

[v3 PATCH] Implement the missing bits of LWG 2769

2018-02-25 Thread Ville Voutilainen
Tested partially on Linux-x64, will test with the full suite on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk and the gcc-7 branch? This is theoretically a breaking change for the branch, but the committee has decided that they don't want the support for copyable-but-not-movable types. 2018-02-25 Ville Voutilainen