Re: [PATCH][libstdc++-v3 parallel mode] PR 33488 improved

[Johannes Singler <singler at ira dot uka dot de>]

Chris Jefferson wrote:
>>> I had a similar problem when I tried to remove the need for a seperate
>>> implementation of each function with and without comparitor object,
>> That a good thing to do, anyway.
>>
>>> the code produced and reasonably debugged is in libstdc++-v7.Have you
>>> looked at how this problem was handled there, and considerduglifying
>>> the non-standard equal_to, to avoid clashes?
>> Sorry, but I cannot find any information about "libstdc++-v7". Can you
>> please point me to somewhere?
> 
> It's a branch in the svn server, but for the purposes of looking at
> the mappers, look in:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/libstdcxx_so_7-branch/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/predefined_ops.h?view=markup

Thanks (I was searching for "v7").
But what you are doing is burying the functors inside nested namespace
__ops. But mine are buried in __gnu_parallel, which should be kind of
the same thing, isn't it?

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/parallel_mode.html
"Support and infrastructure is in namespace __gnu_parallel."

> I can't quite remember exactly how those came about now, but I
> remember we found you needed that many bits to fix all the existing
> code floating about (I think mainly some strange bits of boost).

As long these functors are used by "our" code, we probably don't need
all the variants. Is there a reason to include them nevertheless?

Johannes