This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] Add explicit default constructors where required by the standard
- From: Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:32:43 +0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add explicit default constructors where required by the standard
- References: <CAFKCwrgRP2K0eqPmbWTyBvOqieCW9ayT1CPh3yXNm9rVnNUw9Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTSg8ipaq6pCwvSVwfee1LAmVAAH=k2+UvFefFhXXQmCA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFKCwriWci5cb8=BVDpcqKQktcWOoitR0aqUV_uLicrYg+BrLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQL3knmVgGF5eUHy5d3j0eJ6dYAQ41KOb-Mz7o5UEjSNg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFKCwrghD7r+Pt8sPNV17L9=ZhnVn5Wj7Q_YDaQ9Ehd2y21FNg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQy+kbtS6EDfz4k4ovcLXd8pCxAHm_Jg+=Z2=71W+jbAg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFKCwrisOwosO++cC1dD_nfOrEaPXLcZ+oK6A7hnz=HfiYN_kQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdS5XNRxBU3z7Dpf1jf3UVhPOv4JL8+yOU-2vPyi9U3e=Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdShRwJQRMS-6FeWJxmHON==8gbqTvQt72NRyqOc6MVD_g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFKCwrh4+WENwsc1e2bSijfHcCeZkk85yDz+ksCdLtUji=j56Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
OK to merge to google/4_7 and google/4_8?
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com> wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2013 10:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 14 May 2013 10:45, Evgeniy Stepanov wrote:
>>>> This must have fallen through the cracks.
>>>
>>> It's still in my Git branch at home. I've been too busy to push any
>>> commits recently, but I haven't forgotten it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I realized we also need it in the 4_7 branch. Could you backport the
>>>> change there, too, if it is not too much trouble?
>>>
>>> Yes, for such a small, safe change I'm happy to apply it to the 4.7 branch too.
>>
>> Done.