From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] porting_to: Two-stage overload resolution for implicit move removed
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:51:28 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1892d73a-c210-358c-fe40-c1bafc17fd13@pfeifer.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y0cX0wQJBbmESbG1@redhat.com>
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> +<p>
> +The two overload resolutions approach was complicated and quirky, so users
> +should transition to the newer model. This change means that code that
> +previously didn't compile in C++17 will now compile, for example:</p>
I looked at this recently and am wondering whether there is a word
missing: "two overload" -> "two-stage overload"?
If so, the patch below addresses that
On the way, I changed "[code] will now compile" to "[code] may now
compile", since not every code that failed to compile before will now
compile (e.g., syntactically incorrect code).
What do you think?
Gerald
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
index c727d66f..e595e120 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
@@ -82,9 +82,10 @@ not in C++17). Then C++23 <a href="https://wg21.link/p2266">P2266</a>
removed the fallback overload resolution, and changed the implicit move
rules once again.</p>
-<p>The two overload resolutions approach was complicated and quirky, so users
-should transition to the newer model. This change means that code that
-previously didn't compile in C++17 will now compile, for example:</p>
+<p>The two-stage overload resolutions approach was complicated and
+quirky, so users should transition to the newer model. This change
+means that code that previously didn't compile in C++17 may now
+compile, for example:</p>
<pre><code>
struct S1 { S1(S1 &&); };
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-19 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-12 19:38 Marek Polacek
2022-10-12 20:50 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:24 ` Marek Polacek
2022-10-12 22:38 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:44 ` Marek Polacek
2024-08-19 20:51 ` Gerald Pfeifer [this message]
2024-08-19 20:53 ` Marek Polacek
2024-08-19 21:34 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-08-19 21:35 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-08-19 22:09 ` Marek Polacek
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=1892d73a-c210-358c-fe40-c1bafc17fd13@pfeifer.com \
--to=gerald@pfeifer.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=polacek@redhat.com \
/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).