This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
This is a second try for a patch for libstdc++ bug 68877. See below for responses. 2015-12-22 22:42 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>: > On 21/12/15 12:45 +0100, Daniel KrÃgler wrote: >> >> 2015-12-14 21:48 GMT+01:00 Daniel KrÃgler <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>: >>> >>> This is a reimplementation of __is_swappable and >>> __is_nothrow_swappable according to >>> >>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4511.html >>> >>> and also adds a missing usage of __is_nothrow_swappable in the swap >>> overload for arrays. Strictly speaking the latter change differs from >>> the Standard specification which requires the expression >>> noexcept(swap(*a, *b)) to be used. On the other hand the Standard is >>> broken in this regard, as pointed out by >>> >>> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2554 > > The patch doesn't apply cleanly because it repeats some of the new > files either twice or three times (and also has some trailing > whitespace that shouldn't be there). I can confirm this, albeit I don't understand why this happens. I'm using TortoiseSVN and when trying to create a patch file it creates double entries for new directories. I have now explicitly removed the added directories from the patch, I hope that your patch experience is now better. > After fixing the patch to only > create new files once it applies, but then I get some FAILs: > > FAIL: 20_util/is_nothrow_swappable/value.cc (test for excess errors) > FAIL: 20_util/is_swappable/value.cc (test for excess errors) > > I don't have time to analyse these today, so I'll wait until you're > able to do so. I'm sorry for these errors. I could now find a way to reproduce the tests and found that they were partially due to an incomplete commit and partially because of sleepiness on my side. I hopefully fixed these blatant errors and took the chance to increase the test cases even further. Thanks again, - Daniel
Attachment:
changelog.txt
Description: Text document
Attachment:
68877.patch
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |