On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 18:11, François Dumont wrote:
>
> As proposed below I also updated gcc-13 branch.
Great, thanks.
>
> libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Define __cpp_lib_null_iterators
>
> _GLIBCXX_DEBUG has now fully N3344 compliant iterator checks, we
> can define
>
As proposed below I also updated gcc-13 branch.
libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Define __cpp_lib_null_iterators
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG has now fully N3344 compliant iterator checks, we
can define
__cpp_lib_null_iterators macros like the normal mode.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
*
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 05:59, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Thanks to you doc:
>
> libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Define __[glibcxx,cpp_lib]_null_iterators
>
> _GLIBCXX_DEBUG has now fully N3344 compliant iterator checks, we
> can define
> __glibcxx_null_iterators and
Thanks to you doc:
libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Define __[glibcxx,cpp_lib]_null_iterators
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG has now fully N3344 compliant iterator checks, we
can define
__glibcxx_null_iterators and __cpp_lib_null_iterators macros like
the normal
mode.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:31, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 21:38, François Dumont wrote:
> >
> > Both committed now.
> >
> > Just to confirm, those 2 last patches should be backported to gcc-13
> > branch, right ?
>
> Yes please.
>
> >
> > I might have a try to update
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 21:38, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Both committed now.
>
> Just to confirm, those 2 last patches should be backported to gcc-13
> branch, right ?
Yes please.
>
> I might have a try to update version.h but if you want to do it before
> don't hesitate.
You'll need to have
Both committed now.
Just to confirm, those 2 last patches should be backported to gcc-13
branch, right ?
I might have a try to update version.h but if you want to do it before
don't hesitate.
François
On 18/03/2024 08:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 at 18:14, François
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 at 16:52, François Dumont wrote:
>
>
> >
> > OK for trunk, thanks!
> >
> > I think this is OK to backport to 13 too.
> >
> > Maybe after this we can define the __cpp_lib_null_itetators macro for
> > debug mode?
> >
> After this fix of local_iterator I think we can indeed.
>
>
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 at 18:14, François Dumont wrote:
>
> I was a little bit too confident below. After review of all _M_singular
> usages I found another necessary fix.
>
> After this one for sure we will be able to define
> __cpp_lib_null_iterators even in Debug mode.
>
> libstdc++: Fix
I was a little bit too confident below. After review of all _M_singular
usages I found another necessary fix.
After this one for sure we will be able to define
__cpp_lib_null_iterators even in Debug mode.
libstdc++: Fix N3344 behavior on _Safe_iterator::_M_can_advance
We shall be
OK for trunk, thanks!
I think this is OK to backport to 13 too.
Maybe after this we can define the __cpp_lib_null_itetators macro for
debug mode?
After this fix of local_iterator I think we can indeed.
In fact the added 11316.cc was already passing for
unordered_set<>::local_iterator
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, 12:16 François Dumont, wrote:
> With the patch, sorry.
>
> On 14/03/2024 22:49, François Dumont wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is what I started to do.
> >
> > For now I haven't touch to __cpp_lib_null_iterators definition as
> > _Safe_local_iterator still need some work.
> >
>
With the patch, sorry.
On 14/03/2024 22:49, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
This is what I started to do.
For now I haven't touch to __cpp_lib_null_iterators definition as
_Safe_local_iterator still need some work.
libstdc++: Implement N3644 on _Safe_iterator<> [PR114316]
Consider range of
Hi
This is what I started to do.
For now I haven't touch to __cpp_lib_null_iterators definition as
_Safe_local_iterator still need some work.
libstdc++: Implement N3644 on _Safe_iterator<> [PR114316]
Consider range of value-initialized iterators as valid and empty.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
14 matches
Mail list logo
