Re: Optimizing C++ Move Functions in Stl

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>]

On 12/12/18 15:05 -0500, nick wrote:
> On 2018-12-12 10:24 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 12/12/18 17:17 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:14, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I think there's an attempt to ascertain that mostly constructors and
> > > > > assignment operators need noexcept-fixes,
> > > > > because that noexcept-ness is directly trait-detectable.
> > > > > That would match my current understanding of the situation for at
> > > > > least pair and tuple.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes that's true. I was also asking about is there a TODO list for the current release
> > > > of gcc 9 as Jonathan mentioned this work is a stage 1 fix or feature and should wait
> > > > until gcc 10 stage 1 so was wondering what work is needed in the current stage 3.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the confusion with the previous email and hopefully this makes more sense,
> > >
> > > We don't have a specific TODO list for gcc 9. For general stuff, we have
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LibstdcxxTodo
> > > which is a bit out of date...
> >
> > I think he's asking about GCC in general, not just libstdc++. The
> > answer is that fixing bugs is appropriate for stage 3, so pick any
> > open bugs from Bugzilla.
>
> That's right I was asking about all of gcc. Sorry I thought I CCed the gcc devel
> list so no wonder so confused.

You did CC the GCC list but I removed it from the CC because I was
only responding to the part of your email about libstdc++.

I see no reason to use a single thread for "what is libstdc++'s
noexcept policy" and "what EasyHacks are there in the rest of the
compiler". They should be two separate threads.