On 14/08/14 21:22 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
I am preparing a patch for profile mode so I will submit modification
for this mode with this big patch.
btw, François, for profile mode I think we should just do something
like this patch.
I feel quite strongly that if using Debug Mode or
On 09/09/2014 19:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/08/14 21:22 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
I am preparing a patch for profile mode so I will submit modification
for this mode with this big patch.
btw, François, for profile mode I think we should just do something
like this patch.
I feel
On 09/09/14 23:03 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 09/09/2014 19:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/08/14 21:22 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
I am preparing a patch for profile mode so I will submit
modification for this mode with this big patch.
btw, François, for profile mode I think we
On 14/08/14 21:22 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Then here is the patch to introduce default constructor with
compiler computed noexcept qualification. Note that I also made
allocator aware default constructor allocation free however noexcept
qualification has to be manually written which I
On 30/08/14 20:03 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Any news for my patch proposals ?
Regarding documentation of default minimum number of buckets, I don't
know where it has been documented but why do we need to document it
separately ? Could it be taken care by Doxygen ? Can't it get the
Any news for my patch proposals ?
Regarding documentation of default minimum number of buckets, I don't
know where it has been documented but why do we need to document it
separately ? Could it be taken care by Doxygen ? Can't it get the
default value from the code itself ? If not we could
On 13/08/2014 11:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yes you can, it's conforming to replace a (non-virtual) member function
with default arguments by two or more member functions. We do it all
the time.
See 17.6.5.5 [member.functions] p2.
You should have told it sooner ! But of course no-one is
On 12/08/14 21:53 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 12/08/2014 21:39, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, François Dumont wrote:
Based on your feedbacks I think we should stay with just
targeting good QoI by not allocating on default construction. As I
said the noexcept qualification
On 05/08/2014 22:23, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 08/05/2014 10:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
It doesn't have to be noexcept, but IMHO there is no point changing
the containers to avoid allocation unless that allows us to mark it
noexcept. If it can throw anyway, we might as well allocate the
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, François Dumont wrote:
Based on your feedbacks I think we should stay with just targeting good
QoI by not allocating on default construction. As I said the noexcept
qualification would need to not conform strictly to the Standard.
The standard explicitly says that you
On 12/08/2014 21:39, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, François Dumont wrote:
Based on your feedbacks I think we should stay with just targeting
good QoI by not allocating on default construction. As I said the
noexcept qualification would need to not conform strictly to the
On 25/07/14 22:53 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I think I never get feedback regarding this patch proposal. Note
I've been trying to weigh up the pros and cons and am unsure what's
best, but I think my preference is to have a noexcept default
constructor. Unless you hear any objections
On 04/08/14 12:49 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/07/14 22:53 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I think I never get feedback regarding this patch proposal. Note
I've been trying to weigh up the pros and cons and am unsure what's
best, but I think my preference is to have a noexcept
Hi
I think I never get feedback regarding this patch proposal. Note
that if accepted the doc will have to be updated regarding the default
hint value.
Thanks
On 03/06/2014 22:44, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Thanks to the single bucket introduced to make move semantic
noexcept we
Hi
Thanks to the single bucket introduced to make move semantic
noexcept we can also avoid some over allocations. Here is a patch to
avoid any allocation on default instantiation, on range constructor when
range is empty and on construction from an initialization list when this
list is
15 matches
Mail list logo
