From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Back out some changes in P2325R3 backport [PR103904]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:47:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdTPSBhFgsn91eZGt-YKYLVEdKxupxyjGe0aGTXgce5SDw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fe7ec950-0a3f-86f0-9627-d76df6fb0118@idea>
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, 17:11 Patrick Palka via Libstdc++, <
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
> > In the P2325R3 backport r11-9555 the relaxation of the constraints on
> > the partial specialization of __box (which is semantically equivalent to
> > the primary template, only more space efficient) means some
> > specializations of __box will now use the partial specialization instead
> > of the primary template, which (IIUC) constitutes an ABI change
> unsuitable
> > for a release branch. This patch reverts this constraint change, which
> > isn't needed for correctness anyway.
> >
> > Similarly the change to use __non_propagating_cache for the data member
> > split_view::_M_current (so that it's always default-initializable) also
> > constitutes an unsuitable ABI change. This patch reverts this change
> > too, and instead further constrains split_view's default constructor to
> > require that we can default-initialize _M_current.
>
> Forgot to clarify that this is for the 11 branch, tested on
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Does this look reasonable? I noticed these
> issues while backporting r11-9555 to the 10 branch, which doesn't have
> __non_propagating_cache or the partial specialization of __box.
>
Yes, thanks for spotting the problem. OK for gcc-11.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-11 19:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-11 16:51 Patrick Palka
2022-02-11 17:09 ` Patrick Palka
2022-02-11 19:47 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
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=CAH6eHdTPSBhFgsn91eZGt-YKYLVEdKxupxyjGe0aGTXgce5SDw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=ppalka@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).