From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-333219-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14045 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2010 01:38:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 14037 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2010 01:38:46 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:38:40 +0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/45893] [C++0x] [DR 817] Finish updating std::bind to rvalue refs
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
In-Reply-To: <bug-45893-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-45893-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:38:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00608.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20101007013800.Il5vgfAaZwozOL83q1L-kM1p3UfjOca7CY6jqEcfEFM@z>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45893

--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2010-10-07 01:38:31 UTC ---
PS: I don't know if this can help you with your work, but today I wondered
whether we should put to good use forward_as_tuple where we used to have tie
and elsewhere too. Without having seriously analyzed the situation seems
strange that things like:

        operator()(_Args&&... __args)
        {
          return this->__call<_Result>(tuple<_Args...>
                       (std::forward<_Args>(__args)...),
 can't be

        operator()(_Args&&... __args)
        {
          return this->__call<_Result>(forward_as_tuple(__args...),

or something like that... may need adjustments where tuple<_Args...> is now
expected, tough.