This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [c++0x] result_of
- From: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Paolo Carlini" <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:24:46 +0100
- Subject: Re: [c++0x] result_of
- References: <4348dea50809181536i2f99c784q49e17ff29540e602@mail.gmail.com> <B65A7495-A93C-42B9-9F87-0878094E0D6A@oracle.com> <4348dea50809301616g54af995bxbf12793b908937e7@mail.gmail.com> <48E8E2C5.2070504@oracle.com> <4348dea50810051028t3b2df32dk8273c6c0cfd4c9c5@mail.gmail.com>
2008/10/5 Jonathan Wakely:
> 2008/10/5 Paolo Carlini:
>>
>> Earlier today I added the C++0x versions of the existing
>> tr1::reference_wrapper tests + the testcase from libstdc++/24803 (which
>> I assigned to myself, but only tentatively): while we are touching
>> reference_wrapper too, we should make sure not to regress, and, if
>> possible, we should also fix 24803 (the minimal version). Can you double
>> check your existing patch vs the 3 additional testcases? And / or we can
>> imagine splitting out the reference_wrapper changes... probably I'm Ok
>> with any plan you may want to suggest... Just let me know...
>
> Thanks for CCing me on the other PRs, I'll review them and run the new
> testcases in the next couple of days and get back to you.
My change causes regressions for the new tests, I've broken INVOKE()
but I know what the problem is and it can be solved by the "bit of
genius" in _Mem_fn.
Jonathan