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: breakage with "[v3] (almost) finish <scoped_allocator>"

From: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler at gmail dot com>
To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>, jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:48:10 +0200
Subject: Re: breakage with "[v3] (almost) finish <scoped_allocator>"
References: <201210192028.q9JKSIBF007079@ignucius.se.axis.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1210192244050.3735@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>

2012/10/19 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
>> Looks like _U is one of those identifiers that should be
>> avoided:
>
> [...]
>>
>> What's the preferred replacement?
>
>
> std::pair seems to use _U1 and _U2 rather than _U and _V.

When not numbered, I have seen (and used) _Up (similar to _Tp).

- Daniel

References:
- breakage with "[v3] (almost) finish <scoped_allocator>"
  - From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
- Re: breakage with "[v3] (almost) finish <scoped_allocator>"
  - From: Marc Glisse

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