This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- From: Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:26:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFk2RUYhAnLjFc8mcTfiheJAr4R6E1mdx32PTqZJ5EpPt8=4aQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFk2RUY8Xwx3RvoPGgas4eO4wOvvS+cqh6acp6uBStjdKwS2GA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFk2RUZ_jfxKj0aFfW4D0K0O402RXjFx6yEYM2iVTr5f61iNTA at mail dot gmail dot com> <54BE52DE dot 5080603 at redhat dot com> <CAFk2RUZ3rAxTSwnO44JycT_+r_DSY8a1w5LSi8bE+JPcdFiX1A at mail dot gmail dot com> <54CBC38A dot 8020902 at redhat dot com> <CAFk2RUaFg+VYGC=9CpwRG2YKVJD2srA7Oz=7mCvCdR9ufu0HXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <54CBCCA4 dot 50403 at redhat dot com> <CAFk2RUbLYnzAsKbj2mVRVuBqcEqBqc=ubBtPKdBsceO97aPdeg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFk2RUbJxBjFB1S1rx6uWbO_TNwGj5AzXpE2q=pmD-OQO=UWYQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <54CBEEC0 dot 4040905 at redhat dot com> <CAFk2RUaJ8NGspFdWJbvxYLbH95Pn8r=X=rGXdgLdzt6iv3q_cw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 30 January 2015 at 23:06, Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's drop libstdc++, this discussion is about a test that doesn't
> really concern them.
>
> On 30 January 2015 at 22:51, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>> The patch changes all the static_assert strings to "", which is not very
>> useful; let's keep the macro.
>
>
> Ok. How about this one? It reuses the macro and keeps the YES/NO, but
> utilizes intermediate classes that perform the type transformations for
> the TRY macros in a non-surprising c++ manner.
Just a slight alternative, use TRY in YES/NO as well. It doesn't
change the diagnostics
when such a check fails, apparently, but it's a tad neater. :)
Attachment:
pr63959_8.diff
Description: Text document
- References:
- [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued