Re: Reserve __is_trivially_relocatable for a builtin?

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>]

On 04/02/19 17:34 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 17:28, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> > >>> _Is_trivially_relocatable
> > >
> > > This would be fine.
> > >> them. :) My suggestion
> > >> is to rename the current one to __is_trivially_bitwise_relocatable.
> > >
> > > That would be OK too.
> >
> > It is getting a bit long and redundant (I started doing the change,
> > noticed that a line got too long, and was too lazy to reformat), so my 2
> > choices now are: _Is_trivially_relocatable or __is_bitwise_relocatable
> >
> > I'll probably pick the first since Jonathan already said it was fine,
> > although I can be quickly persuaded to use the second.
>
> Please use the second. I don't want _Is_trivially_relocatable and
> __is_trivially_relocatable to co-exist.
> There's a one-char difference between them (I told you I don't see
> underscores :P).

Yeah __is_bitwise_relocatable is good. I prefer that to both of
__is_trivially_relocatable and __is_trivially_bitwise_relocatable.

Avoiding the word "trivially" makes sense if we want to specialize it
for things like std::pair which aren't trivial.