public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ldionne.2 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/110000] GCC should implement exclude_from_explicit_instantiation
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 15:40:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110000-4-NxFCzPBXV9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110000-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110000

--- Comment #9 from Louis Dionne <ldionne.2 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I am getting a feeling this attribute is well defined enough.
> 
> Is it really just supposed to block explicit instantiation of templates?
> Is there a decent set of testcases that can be used to match up the
> implementations here? Because I suspect without those it will be implemented
> slightly different.

Is there anything specific you're thinking about that would be insufficiently
defined? It's possible that that's the case, and if so then we can define it
properly and make sure Clang/GCC are aligned on the semantics.

This is quite a painful issue for libc++ on GCC since the current solution is
to use `always_inline`, which has too many downsides. It used to be just an
annoyance, but with the addition of libraries like `std::format`, using
`always_inline` leads to a library that is literally unusable in some cases
(compile times and code size just skyrockets). So yeah, we're much willing to
collaborate in order to make this work.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-05-31 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-26 20:25 [Bug c++/110000] New: " nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-05-26 20:31 ` [Bug c++/110000] " ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
2023-05-26 20:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-26 20:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-26 20:42 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-05-27 10:39 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-27 23:40 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-05-28  6:13 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-28 14:31 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-05-31 15:40 ` ldionne.2 at gmail dot com [this message]
2023-05-31 16:48 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-31 16:52 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-31 17:33 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-06-01 18:00 ` ldionne.2 at gmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-110000-4-NxFCzPBXV9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).