From: "Tim Shen via gcc-patches" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Tim Song <t.canens.cpp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR libstdc++/80939 Remove unmeetable constexpr specifiers
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAG4ZjN=0A_7LDVudhxin6VP0b5mCO1QuXt9No2Kcu+vvkLS4tg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170602130734.GA6233@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> As the PR points out, we aren't qualifying calls to __ref_cast, and
> have 'constexpr' on function templates that can never be usable in
> constant expressions.
Apology for the constexpr trolling, but that was not intentional. :)
I'm curious why no tests break. Is it because constexpr in a template
function is a no-op instead of a hard error, when the function
definition is not constexpr?
The patch looks good.
>
> This fixes it, and also simplifies __variant::__erased_dtor by using
> std::_Destroy, although that requires including quite a lot more code,
> for iterator_traits and allocator_traits. If that matters (probably
> not) then <bits/stl_construct.h> could be split up to move _Construct
> and _Destroy to a new <bits/stl_construct_base.h>. Or maybe I should
> just leave __erased_dtor alone (apart from qualifying the __ref_cast
> call).
>
> Anybody feel strongly either way?
>
> PR libstdc++/80939
> * include/std/variant (__erased_ctor, __erased_assign,
> __erased_swap)
> (__erased_hash): Remove constexpr specifier and qualify calls to
> __ref_cast.
> (__erased_dtor): Remove constexpr specifier and use _Destroy.
>
>
--
Regards,
Tim Shen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-02 19:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-02 13:07 Jonathan Wakely
2017-06-02 19:19 ` Tim Shen via gcc-patches [this message]
2017-06-02 19:40 ` Tim Song
2017-06-05 16:49 ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-06-11 0:15 ` Tim Song
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='CAG4ZjN=0A_7LDVudhxin6VP0b5mCO1QuXt9No2Kcu+vvkLS4tg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=t.canens.cpp@gmail.com \
--cc=timshen@google.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).