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: We should mark "Should Span be Regular? P1085R2" as well.

From: "Ed Smith-Rowland via gcc-patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
Cc: "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: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:04:37 -0400
Subject: Re: We should mark "Should Span be Regular? P1085R2" as well.
References: <4a255c9f-995c-abed-98e5-ef5112e6c91a@verizon.net> <20190909093859.GT9487@redhat.com>
Reply-to: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net>

On 9/9/19 5:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

On 06/09/19 18:08 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
As the title says.
<span> was (correctly) delivered without comparison ops. so we chouldcheck off p1085.
Indeed, thanks!
This includes the status updates for constexpr lib diffs postedpreviously.
I also regenerated the html (resulted in pure boiler except formanual/status.html).
The boilerplate change are a bit annoying



Ok, here is what I finally committed (just two files)..

Ed

Attachment: CL_2020
Description: Text document

Attachment: patch_2020_2.txt
Description: Text document

Follow-Ups:
- Re: We should mark "Should Span be Regular? P1085R2" as well.
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

References:
- Re: We should mark "Should Span be Regular? P1085R2" as well.
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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