objects.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 0b1ce87e22ebcefbc19c9b26d58a1cd2a2654297
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 19 21:02:13 2013 +
PR libstdc++/55861
* include/std/future (_State_base::_S_check(const shared_ptrT
On 22 January 2013 17:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Now in the form of a tested patch (regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux). Ok for trunk?
OK, thanks.
dg-additional-options unfortunately isn't supported in libstdc++ testsuite,
so had to use second dg-options, and also the \(, \) were wrong
Committed as obvious.
* doc/extend.texi (__int128): Improve grammar.
commit b907a92691dbabe5755bc82c5e66718c8b255f4c
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jan 22 21:36:04 2013 +
* doc/extend.texi (__int128): Improve grammar.
diff --git a/gcc/doc
6fe4893a2c8b4ebb1fbf84f0afc145412c5167b6
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Thu Jan 17 22:13:46 2013 +
* doc/install.texi (Downloading the Source): Update references to
downloading separate components.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
index
On 24 January 2013 19:03, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
This patch allows us to catch use of destructed strings.
Hello,
while a number of the google debug patches are just cheaper versions (that
don't break the ABI) of what libstdc++'s debug mode provides,
is present on the 4.6 and 4.7
branches, but not a regression.
commit ca741fccc5d052db08ba839bd45ece7564ac5004
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jan 28 00:08:43 2013 +
PR libstdc++/56112
* include/bits/hashtable_policy.h (insert(_Pair)): Use _M_emplace
On 10 January 2013 21:02, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is an other version of this patch. Indeed there were no need to
expose many stuff public. Inheriting from _Hash_code_base is fine, it is not
final and it deals with EBO itself. I only kept usage of
_Hashtable_ebo_helper when
On 28 January 2013 21:08, François Dumont wrote:
(Do the performance benchmarks actually tell us anything useful?
When I run them I get such varying results it doesn't seem to be
reliable.)
Last time I run the tests it was showing when not caching was better than
caching.
Yes, I've
On 2 February 2013 21:57, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the last patch I can think of for 4.8. Thanks to it default
performance reported in performance/23_containers/insert/54075.cc and
performance/23_containers/insert_erase/41975.cc are always the best:
Excellent.
Ok to commit ?
number.
* testsuite/23_containers/unordered_set/
not_default_constructible_hash_neg.cc: Likewise.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk, will also commit to 4.7 soon.
commit 4eb16ce9981130d6322f474d22f9c1aeba2b864d
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Sun Feb 10 22:12
PR libstdc++/56278
* include/bits/hashtable_policy.h (_Hash_code_base): Make default
constructor public.
* testsuite/23_containers/unordered_set/56278.cc: New.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit b893384109ddb4dfc1afac24dc6b2c56557f2fa8
Author: Jonathan
added for PR 56267, the change I committed is attached.
Please let me know if you think it's wrong or unclear.
2013-02-10 François Dumont fdum...@gcc.gnu.org
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
* doc/xml/manual/containers.xml: Add section on unordered containers
On 11 February 2013 17:18, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I think it's Ok, yes. Thanks. However, I would appreciate if somebody with a
glibc 2.17 system at hand could double check. Maybe HJ?
Although I'm sure Carlos is right that they're close enough to not
need checking, I've got a Rawhide setup with
On 11 February 2013 19:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11 February 2013 17:18, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I think it's Ok, yes. Thanks. However, I would appreciate if somebody with a
glibc 2.17 system at hand could double check. Maybe HJ?
Although I'm sure Carlos is right that they're close enough
On 10 March 2011 09:47, Johannes Singler wrote:
The attached patch patch solves a conformance problem of the parallel mode
helper routine multiseq_partition. I have added a test case for that.
multiseq_selection has similar problems, but is unused, so I plan to remove
that completely (which
On 10 March 2011 15:02, Johannes Singler wrote:
Well, isn't it a bit ugly to define such a guard newly every time?
It's one of my favourite techniques, the type is local and has no
linkage, it should be nothing but a destructor call which is
guaranteed to happen when exiting that scope.
In
On 14 March 2011 17:29, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
I hacked up scripts/check_compile and ran the libstdc++ testsuite to
generate 4k+ .s files, and then analyzed the resulting assembly files
for vague linkage.
Here are the clear wins that are ABI-compatible, or in C++0x code. There
are other
I've committed this patch to note a change in G++, as requested in the
comments of PR c++/44499
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.114
diff -u -r1.114
numbering. This is problem is present on all active
release branches.
48221 simply replaces -Wcpp with -Wno-cpp in the options summary and
removes a stray backslash which prevents the option appearing in the
HTML docs. This is only relevant for 4.6 and trunk.
2011-03-22 Jonathan Wakely jwakely
On 24 March 2011 10:12, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
Committed to 4.4 and 4.5 branches as obvious, will apply to 4.6 after
4.6.0 is released. The option's gone on the trunk so not relevant
there.
If you apply
On 25 March 2011 22:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The tests are invalid. There were preconditions added to match_results
member functions recently, which we now check in debug mode, and those
tests violate them.
I'll deal with it, thanks for testing it.
2011-03-25 Jonathan Wakely jwakely
2011-03-25 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
* include/std/future (future::share): Add.
(packaged_task::result_type): Remove as per LWG 2030.
(packaged_task::packaged_task): Remove redundant constructors, as per
LWG 1514.
* testsuite/30_threads/future
On 29 March 2011 01:49, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Hi again.
Here it is my first try at this. I have changed the list to
gcc-patches, I don't know if cross post would be correct.
Please, note that this patch is not finished: the new test cases are
still missing, and expect format mistakes,
On 29 March 2011 21:33, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
How about No suitable %begin% and %end% functions found for range
expression of type %qT in %for% statement ?
Nice.
But the problem here is that there are a lot
On 31 March 2011 21:22, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/28/2011 08:28 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
A few comments:
1. I'm not sure about what should happen if the begin/end found in class
scope are not ordinary functions.
2011-04-02 Jonathan Wakely r...@gcc.gnu.org
PR libstdc++/48398
* include/bits/unique_ptr.h (__tuple_type): Store pointer type.
* testsuite/20_util/unique_ptr/modifiers/48398.cc: New.
* testsuite/20_util/unique_ptr/requirements/pointer_type.cc: Remove
.)
---
happened should be replaced with happen or with be happned I think.
Thanks, fixed by this patch, committed to trunk as obvious
2011-04-06 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
* doc/invoke.texi (Spec Files): Fix typo.
Index: doc/invoke.texi
On 10 April 2011 23:51, Frédéric Buclin wrote:
Le 10. 04. 11 02:19, Joseph S. Myers a écrit :
Likewise. We don't use VERIFIED and CLOSED in GCC, proper text should
reflect the existence of only one closed state with a genuine meaning and
not mention the others (ideally they'd be completely
On 28 September 2011 04:22, Michael Spertus wrote:
Benjamin,
I think tuple is wrong both for performance reasons (I believe these are
likely to be serious enough to depress use due to inordinately long compiles)
and because it prematurely locks us into a rigid choice of how our typelists
On 3 October 2011 02:55, Michael Spertus wrote:
Index: gcc/c-family/c-common.h
===
--- gcc/c-family/c-common.h (revision 178892)
+++ gcc/c-family/c-common.h (working copy)
@@ -139,7 +139,8 @@
RID_IS_LITERAL_TYPE,
2011-10-03 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
* testsuite/20_util/pointer_traits/pointer_to.cc: Define equality
operator and use.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
Index: testsuite/20_util/pointer_traits/pointer_to.cc
I've committed this, which documents the fix for
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR1773 in gcc-4.7/changes.html, and also replaces
some characters with the gt; entity.
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file:
-10-04 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
* doc/install.texi (Specific): Fix anchor for
x86_64-*-solaris2.1[0-9]*
Index: install.texi
===
--- install.texi(revision 179520)
+++ install.texi(working
2011-10-04 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
* include/ext/alloc_traits.h (__alloc_traits::max_size): Define.
(__alloc_traits::rebind): Define.
* include/bits/stl_vector.h: Use them.
* testsuite/util/testsuite_allocator.h (SimpleAllocator): Define
This adds the new C++11 pop_back() member to string, debug/string
and ext/vstring.h, as added by LWG 534.
* include/bits/basic_string.h (basic_string::pop_back): Define.
* include/ext/vstring.h (versa_string::pop_back): Define.
* include/debug/string
Now that G++ supports non-static data member initializers, I want to
use it for initializing the __gthread_mutex_t members of std::mutex
and friends:
__native_type _M_mutex = __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT;
This is more portable than our current code, which does:
constexpr mutex() noexcept :
On 6 October 2011 02:57, Paolo Carlini wrote:
today I ran the whole testsuite in C++0x mode and I'm pretty sure that
23_containers/vector/modifiers/swap/3.cc, which is now failing, wasn't a
couple of days ago (I ran the whole testsuite like that in order to validate
my std::list changes).
On 6 October 2011 23:15, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Does anyone have any comments or objections to going in this
direction? If the new base classes aren't OK the NSDMI syntax could
still be used, just without refactoring to remove the code
duplication.
I like where you are going here. This
On 10 October 2011 02:10, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I've committed this, which documents the fix for
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR1773 in gcc-4.7/changes.html, and also replaces
some characters with the gt; entity.
Interesting that the latter was not caught
This patch should enable macosx support for thread and partial
support for mutex, by defining _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS on POSIX
systems without the _POSIX_TIMEOUTS option, and only disabling the
types which rely on the Timeouts option, std::timed_mutex and
std::recursive_timed_mutex, instead of
On 21 October 2011 00:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This patch should enable macosx support for thread and partial
support for mutex, by defining _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS on POSIX
systems without the _POSIX_TIMEOUTS option, and only disabling the
types which rely on the Timeouts option, std
On 21 October 2011 09:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21 October 2011 00:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This patch should enable macosx support for thread and partial
support for mutex, by defining _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS on POSIX
systems without the _POSIX_TIMEOUTS option, and only disabling
Plus this bit, which I didn't include in my 'svn diff' command for the
last patches:
* testsuite/30_threads/unique_lock/cons/5.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/30_threads/unique_lock/cons/6.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/30_threads/unique_lock/locking/3.cc: Likewise.
*
I've committed this, if I've broken anything for non-POSIX platforms
there will be time to fix it before 4.7
PR libstdc++/50834
* doc/xml/manual/using.xml: Update thread safety docs w.r.t. C++11.
committed to trunk
Index: doc/xml/manual/using.xml
===
--- doc/xml/manual/using.xml (revision 180334)
+++ doc/xml/manual/using.xml
On 24 October 2011 08:27, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
On 22 Oct 2011, at 22:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I've committed this, if I've broken anything for non-POSIX platforms
there will be time to fix it before 4.7
At present, (180333-180339) these tests seem to be failing on *-darwin
PR libstdc++/49894
* include/std/mutex (__mutex_base,__recursive_mutex_base): Define new
base classes to manage construction/destruction of native mutexes,
using NSDMI when INIT macros are defined.
(mutex,recursive_mutex,timed_mutex,recursive_timed_mutex):
PR libstdc++/50862
* include/std/condition_variable (condition_variable_any::wait): Fix
deadlock and ensure _Lock::lock() is called on exit.
(condition_variable_any::native_handle): Remove, as per LWG 1500.
*
This is a follow up to my last two changes to the condition_variable
code. For some reason G++ didn't reject the explicitly-defaulted
functions in src/condition_variable.cc even though they had different
exception specifications to the declaration. I will try to file that
in bugzilla but can't
PR libstdc++/50862
* include/std/condition_variable (condition_variable_any::wait): Avoid
terminating if relocking user mutex throws during stack-unwinding.
* testsuite/30_threads/condition_variable_any/50862.cc: Add dg-require.
Fixes two more issues pointed out in
On 9 April 2012 20:25, François Dumont wrote:
I don't think I have the necessary rights to close the PR on bugzilla, I
haven't been able to do so.
You should be able to using your @gcc.gnu.org account. What if you
assign it to yourself first?
This fixes a check-performance failure caused by my changes for libstdc++/49204
* testsuite/performance/30_threads/future/polling.cc: Adjust.
Tested x86_64-linux, committing to trunk and 4.7 branch.
commit fbb91a75e318226e666967a28883483a027f1f07
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely
I think this makes the text read a bit better.
* doc/xml/manual/debug.xml (Debug Versions of Library Binary Files):
Re-arrange text slightly.
Committed to trunk
commit 74b28e0fa40289525b44c79920cbd64a36a0cb52
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Wed Apr 11 23:13
-error
line numbers.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk and 4.7
commit bab6adfa9c9cf5d3fd47c5eeffe7c4f58091ef3d
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Wed Apr 11 10:05:00 2012 +0100
PR libstdc++/52924
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (_Sp_counted_deleter
Oops, meant to CC gcc-patches ...
On 21 April 2012 01:01, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 April 2012 00:37, Todd Edwards wrote:
In Section New Languages and Language specific improvements In subsection
C Family Objective-C is repeated twice. :
A new experimental -ftrack
I think this patch is a *huge* improvement for C++ diagnostics that
refer to standard library files, I really hope it will be approved in
some form.
On 21 April 2012 12:58, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
Ping: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00903.html
On 15
On 16 April 2012 21:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I have a patch to add the checks to debug/forward_list
And here it is, only checking in debug mode because noone objected to
that suggestion.
* include/debug/forward_list (forward_list::splice_after): Check
allocators are equal
: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 20 09:13:44 2012 +0100
* include/bits/ptr_traits.h (pointer_traits::rebind): Make public.
* testsuite/20_util/pointer_traits/requirements/typedefs.cc: Check
rebind works.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits
The allocator_traits wrapper is missing difference_type, noticed while
making vstring allocator-aware.
* include/ext/alloc_traits.h (__alloc_traits::difference_type):
Define.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 7a3e74660df7df20bebb7676cd9142841637ba40
Author: Jonathan
On 23 April 2012 04:10, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
Could you try to get this into mainline instead of just the google
branches? In http://gcc.gnu.org/PR52538, Jonathan sounded like he'd
consider accepting it.
I think it's useful, but I can't approve front-end patches.
On 25 April 2012 08:33, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
This testcase is reported as failed on x86
Yep.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-04/msg02547.html
Benjamin?
Noticed that this testcase wasn't put in as part of the patch. Fixed as
follows.
tested x86/linux
-benjamin
* include/std/scoped_allocator (scoped_allocator::__outermost): Do
not pass non-POD to varargs function.
* testsuite/20_util/scoped_allocator/1.cc: Fix test.
This fixes a potential problem in scoped_allocator and fixes a
broken test (and ensures it actually runs!)
Tested
On 26 April 2012 11:12, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
So maybe it'd be better to canonicalize the _cpp_file::path when it's
first build? One drawback of that approach would be that
_cpp_file::path will then permanently loose the information about the
current directory, that is indirectly encoded
.
* include/std/functional (function::function(F)): LWG 2132: Disable
constructor if argument isn't callable.
* testsuite/20_util/function/cons/callable.cc: New.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 0e069c4221d6ed4fda7d10938470c472170dcad7
Author: Jonathan Wakely
.
* doc/xml/manual/debug.xml: Likewise.
* doc/xml/manual/evolution.xml: Likewise.
* doc/xml/manual/using.xml: Likewise.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 54ea46758e35adc8b42ee35dafdf0b43e9980104
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Thu May 3 00:12:48
close the PR as fixed.
commit 36d2e77bb740df5f9ef68a52f7cac95f8306dfd1
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jul 22 02:02:09 2012 +0100
PR libstdc++/53270
* acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_GTHREADS_CXX11_COPY_ASSIGN): Define.
* configure.ac
(CC gcc-patches)
On 25 July 2012 10:26, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a patch proposal for PR 54075. I also took the occasion to fix
something that has been delay so far which is usage of std::max to get the
number of buckets to use. The problem of using std::max when using the hash
On 25 July 2012 21:29, François Dumont wrote:
(_Hashtable::rehash): Likewise. Set _M_prev_resize to 0 to avoid
the hashtable to be shrinking on next insertion.
Not to be shrinking just shrinking, but nevermind.
Please remember to CC gcc-patches too.
On 28 July 2012 21:49, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the patch to restore the 4.6 growth factor of 2. I prefer to
validate the restored behavior by adding a performance test. Without the
patch the result was:
unordered_set.cc
On 29 July 2012 18:15, François Dumont wrote:
Patch applied. I usually CC to gcc-patches when I signal that it has been
applied. Should I send it all my patch proposals ?
Yes please. The point is to allow people to review and comment before
the patch is applied, and some people only subscribe
On 30 July 2012 20:16, François Dumont wrote:
Ok for trunk ?
OK, thanks.
On 1 August 2012 20:34, François Dumont wrote:
Ok for trunk ?
OK, thanks.
/20_util/unique_ptr/assign/48635_neg.cc: Likewise.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 9386ced4bfd9990046d2dec6a080478c8cc01c50
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 3 01:25:19 2012 +0100
* include/std/memory: Include auto_ptr.h later.
* include
On 9 August 2012 09:35, Paolo Carlini wrote:
When it does, and the corresponding PR will be *ready* we'll reconsider the
issue. After all the *months and months and months* spent by the LWG adding
and removing members from pair and tweaking everything wrt the containers
and issues *still*
: Likewise.
* include/std/chrono: Likewise.
* include/std/thread: Likewise.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit 0d6bc17d16d85865ed4b6deffd455d3e1e12f430
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 9 23:21:27 2012 +0100
* acinclude.m4: Update
On 10 August 2012 20:49, Tom Tromey wrote:
A user reported on irc that the std::unique_ptr pretty-printer yields
bad results. For example:
(gdb) p uptr
$1 = std::tuple containing = {
[1] = ,
[2] = {
std::default_deletedatum = {No data fields}, No data fields}
}
This omits the
Let's CC Gaby, who likes to keep an eye on patches involving complex
On 10 August 2012 20:17, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ping
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01440.html
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
here is a patch for PR54112. It does 2 things:
* #undef complex
On 11 August 2012 14:47, Marc Glisse wrote:
What testcase failed? I just tried the 2.cc file you added with the patch,
and replacing forwardkey_type(__k) with move(__k) compiled fine.
Shouldn't it be std::move(__k) to disable ADL though?
On 13 August 2012 16:47, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:02:30PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This improves the fairly uninformative Operation not supported
message given when std::thread is used without linking to libpthread.
Now you get:
terminate called
On 13 August 2012 14:31, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jonathan == Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com writes:
$11 = std::unique_ptr containing (datum *) 0x6067d0
Jonathan It's inconsistent with the other printers in that it prints
Jonathan the stored type, unlike e.g. std::vectorint which just says
On 13 August 2012 12:57, Marc Glisse wrote:
I only modified the xml version. I expect the html version will be updated
the next time someone who knows what they are doing touches the doc...
That's no problem, I tend to regenerate the html fairly frequently.
Thanks.
On 13 August 2012 18:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I suppose EOPNOTSUPP might be better, if it's supported everywhere.
EPERM has the advantage of being a documented error for
pthread_create.
We do define std::errc::operation_not_supported unconditionally on
most platforms, but not mingw or djgpp
/condition_variable/54185.cc: New.
Tested x86-64-linux, committed to 4.7 and trunk.
Thanks for the bug report and patch, David.
commit 03a66e46ee35b74372da5c46caa4e7761d10b4c8
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13 19:45:30 2012 +0100
2012-08-13 David Adler d.adle
On 14 August 2012 15:44, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jonathan == Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com writes:
Jonathan I prefer it as unique_ptrdatum but I'm probably not your typical
Jonathan user of the pretty printers, so if anyone else has an opinion please
Jonathan share it.
I prefer it too
PR libstdc++/54354
* doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml: Note missing manipulators.
* doc/html/*: Regenerate.
Committed to trunk.
PR libstdc++/54248
* include/bits/concept_check.h: Replace references to boost
namespace.
Committed to trunk.
commit c545fcbc54ee0a5990c5c9cf84116b55ab07475a
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Sat Aug 25 19:49:10 2012 +0100
PR libstdc++/54248
.
* testsuite/30_threads/async/54297.cc: New.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk and 4.7
commit 1006a99bff42b02e8ff7d2eaa696d639cfe3d0d7
Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Date: Sat Aug 25 19:25:27 2012 +0100
PR libstdc++/54297
* include/std/future
On 26 August 2012 00:33, Ulrich Drepper drep...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
wrote:
Personally, assuming the name itself is already reserved / used elsewhere,
That was my thinking as well. There shouldn't be any further namespace
2012-08-26 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
Geoff Romer gro...@google.com
PR libstdc++/54351
* include/bits/unique_ptr.h (unique_ptrT::~unique_ptr): Do not use
reset().
(unique_ptrT[]::~unique_ptr()): Likewise.
* testsuite/20_util
On 23 August 2012 09:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
PR libstdc++/54354
* doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml: Note missing manipulators.
* doc/html/*: Regenerate.
Committed to trunk.
I forgot to attach the patch, here it is.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual
On 26 August 2012 14:08, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
If people agree this is acceptable and the consensus is that
generate_n() is the better name I can submit a patch so that the
remaining random work can be submitted. Still ways to go...
Unless you're thinking of changing the interface to take a
On 26 August 2012 00:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This fixes a stupid mistake I made where the functor and asynchronous
result can go out of scope before the async thread is joined.
The _Async_state_common destructor still needs to be exported from the
library, which is what the macro hack
On 26 August 2012 18:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Aug 26, 2012 4:17 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
According to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2010-04/msg00064.html
One reason of --enable-libstdcxx-time=no on Linux is
not all users will want for an experimental c++0x mode.
Is this feature
On 26 August 2012 18:19, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Also, I consider the interface clean and now very C++-y. Iterators
are used and transparently all kinds of overloads are possible. Only
the iterator variants need to be documented, making the extensions
easy to use. The only minor complication
On 26 August 2012 18:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 26 August 2012 18:19, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Also, I consider the interface clean and now very C++-y. Iterators
are used and transparently all kinds of overloads are possible. Only
the iterator variants need to be documented, making
/O code, reducing the footprint of
libstdc++.
2012-08-27 Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
* acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_ENABLE_VERBOSE): Define.
* configure.ac (GLIBCXX_ENABLE_VERBOSE): Use it.
* config.h.in
On 28 August 2012 16:15, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Hi,
in some old, large, originally C-written application (using gcc-4.2.4 still)
I did have to find a bug that boils down to something like this:
std::string x;
strcpy( (char*) x.c_str(), abc);
Any subsequent empty std::string
On 28 August 2012 18:29, Mike Stump wrote:
On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Unless anyone has objections I'm going to commit this to trunk,
implementing Sebastian's idea to disable the verbose terminate handler
and the pure virtual function called message, which write
On 28 August 2012 18:27, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Does it actually produce a segfault? I suppose it might on some
platforms, but not all, so I'm not sure it's worth changing.
It does segfault here on (32bit each):
i686-pc-linux-gnu
ia64-hp-hpux11.31
i386-pc-solaris2.10
On 28 August 2012 11:08, François Dumont wrote:
(erase(const key_type)): Use latters.
Let's put Use the new member functions here in the ChangeLog, I
don't think you can make a plural out of latter :-)
* testsuite/23_containers/unordered_map/erase/54296.cc: New.
*
501 - 600 of 9533 matches
Mail list logo
