This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: vector<bool> _M_start and 0 offset
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- To: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- Cc: Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:12:59 +0100
- Subject: Re: vector<bool> _M_start and 0 offset
- References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1809151309440.6584@stedding.saclay.inria.fr> <20180917154554.GP23172@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809171945370.15883@stedding.saclay.inria.fr> <20180917185023.GQ23172@redhat.com> <CAFk2RUb6QCOWJi5enaaNYdv6m=QrBjicfJPy2jqc-MyiRajQCQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180917191002.GR23172@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809172113510.15883@stedding.saclay.inria.fr> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809172123080.15883@stedding.saclay.inria.fr> <20180917193648.GU23172@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809291055420.22414@stedding.saclay.inria.fr>
On 29/09/18 10:56 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
here is a clang-friendly version of the patch (same changelog), tested
a while ago. Is it ok or do you prefer something like the
+ if(this->_M_impl._M_start._M_offset != 0) __builtin_unreachable();
version suggested by François?
I don't think __builtin_unreachable would improve the clarity of the code.
The patch is OK for trunk, thanks.