This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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]

Re: Extend aligned_membuf<> usage

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:59:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Extend aligned_membuf<> usage
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <ae3f9581-2d6f-f174-3af6-df067390b08d@gmail.com> <20180205171622.GG13489@redhat.com> <fbf0cbf8-b0bd-69d4-2962-2a733c460fc4@gmail.com> <0edc65a5-d842-1b9e-111a-35275bd09397@gmail.com>

On 8 February 2018 at 06:10, François Dumont wrote:
> On 06/02/2018 20:16, François Dumont wrote:
>>
>> On 05/02/2018 18:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply make __aligned_buffer identical
>>> to __aligned_membuf for the versioned-namespace? Then at least the
>>> conditional code is only in one place.
>>>
>> Yes, __aligned_buffer is indeed not used, we could do that. I'll propose a
>> patch to do so.
>>
> So here it is, ok to commit ?

OK, because it only affects the gnu-versioned-namespace mode.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Extend aligned_membuf<> usage
  - From: François Dumont

References:
- Extend aligned_membuf<> usage
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: Extend aligned_membuf<> usage
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: Extend aligned_membuf<> usage
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: Extend aligned_membuf<> usage
  - From: François Dumont

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]