This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [v3 PATCH] Avoid endless run-time recursion for copying single-element tuples where the element type is by-value constructible from any type
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- To: Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler at gmail dot com>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 10:28:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] Avoid endless run-time recursion for copying single-element tuples where the element type is by-value constructible from any type
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFk2RUbNSFqrX5kuEK-yd14verEu=ttGiq-Njm5=UhyMchvJVg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGNvRgAV-C3OJvTftCYhwiNzO4SQqPpqajUJh6aBXAHGf29f6w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFk2RUb+M+DGT4ZgWWE6zxScjGnECeqh9e4qU7T1Lvk9LsPyZw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFk2RUazqfUdQoOdrbjhO54G9QDdtEj8N2baffxLzcVR0pMoVg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 08/05/16 15:55 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
For what it's worth, I have the tiniest preference against using decay
here; whenever I see
decay, I wonder whether array/function decay is significant. While it
doesn't make a difference
here, I still prefer just doing remove_reference+remove_const here.
It's up to Jonathan, I'll change
it to decay if he so advises.
At one point I felt the same about being more precise with
remove_ref+remove_const, but I just use decay now.
I don't have a preference either way (although if we added a __decay_t
alias for use in C++11 then I might be swayed to use that, as it would
be even more concise).