On Sep 19 2016, François Dumont wrote:
> diff --git
> a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/mutex_association.cc
> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/mutex_association.cc
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..a3c56e2
> --- /dev/null
> +++
On 28/09/16 21:30 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 27/09/2016 12:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Index: include/debug/safe_base.h
===
--- include/debug/safe_base.h(revision 240509)
+++ include/debug/safe_base.h(working copy)
@@
On 27/09/2016 12:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Index: include/debug/safe_base.h
===
--- include/debug/safe_base.h(revision 240509)
+++ include/debug/safe_base.h(working copy)
@@ -121,11 +121,11 @@
void
_M_detach();
+
On 27/09/2016 17:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/09/16 09:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/09/16 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following our conversation here is a much simpler patch. I just
consider that all debug containers will have the same alignment.
Even if I
On 20/09/16 09:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/09/16 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following our conversation here is a much simpler patch. I just
consider that all debug containers will have the same alignment.
Even if I submit this patch as a whole I will commit into
On 26/09/16 22:36 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Fixed with attached patch.
François
On 26/09/2016 13:56, Andreas Schwab wrote:
FAIL: 23_containers/list/debug/invalidation/4.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
Fixed with attached patch.
François
On 26/09/2016 13:56, Andreas Schwab wrote:
FAIL: 23_containers/list/debug/invalidation/4.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160926/Build/m68k-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_sequence.tcc:89:
error: 'void
FAIL: 23_containers/list/debug/invalidation/4.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160926/Build/m68k-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/safe_sequence.tcc:89:
error: 'void __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator_base::_M_detach_single()' is
protected within this context
On 20/09/16 09:57 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/09/16 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following our conversation here is a much simpler patch. I just
consider that all debug containers will have the same alignment.
Even if I submit this patch as a whole I will commit into
On 19/09/16 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following our conversation here is a much simpler patch. I just
consider that all debug containers will have the same alignment.
Even if I submit this patch as a whole I will commit into pieces,
at least one for the pure cleanup parts
On 19/09/16 21:56 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following our conversation here is a much simpler patch. I just
consider that all debug containers will have the same alignment.
Even if I submit this patch as a whole I will commit into pieces,
at least one for the pure cleanup parts
Hi
Following our conversation here is a much simpler patch. I just
consider that all debug containers will have the same alignment.
Even if I submit this patch as a whole I will commit into pieces,
at least one for the pure cleanup parts and one for the debug.cc change.
Among
On 14/09/16 22:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 14/09/2016 11:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/09/16 22:37 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
When I proposed to change std::hash for pointers my plan was to
use this approach for the debug containers. So here is the patch
leveraging on
On 14/09/2016 11:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/09/16 22:37 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
When I proposed to change std::hash for pointers my plan was to
use this approach for the debug containers. So here is the patch
leveraging on this technique to avoid going through _Hash_impl to
On 13/09/16 22:37 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
When I proposed to change std::hash for pointers my plan was to
use this approach for the debug containers. So here is the patch
leveraging on this technique to avoid going through _Hash_impl to hash
address and get mutex index from it. I
15 matches
Mail list logo