This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [PATCH] Add missing noexpect causes in tuple for move functions


Sent offlist.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 20:06, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-12-02 11:53 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:46 PM nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2018-12-01 10:32 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause
> >>>> to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here:
> >>>> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899.
> >>>
> >>> This isn't "the spec", it's a proposed (but incorrect) resolution to a
> >>> defect in the standard. What it proposes may not fix the defect, but I
> >>> think it's an improvement to the std::tuple API anyway, and so I want
> >>> libstdc++ to implement it. "The spec" is the C++ standard, but it
> >>> explicitly allows implementations to add stronger
> >>> exception-specifications where a function is known not to throw.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the patch. Something this small could be accepted without a
> >>> copyright assignment, but as it seems like you're interested in
> >>> contributing more (which is great!) you should be aware of the legal
> >>> prerequisites for larger contributions (which also applies to several
> >>> small contributions, even if each one is trivial). See
> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for details, and let me know if
> >>> you have any questions about that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Jonathan,
> >>
> >> My only question remains is for copyright is it per patch or just one time.
> >>
> >> My other question is related to the noexcept parts and that either I or
> >> you should move and CC the other involed list i.e. the llibstdc++ list.
> >
> > You can submit one copyright assignment per patch ... if you're a masochist.
> >
> > The recommended approach is a single "Futures" copyright assignment
> > for all current and future patches.
> >
> > Thanks, David
> >
>
> It mentions on the page to just ask about copyright forms, so I am asking here
> for them before I just send them to the assign email address given.
>
> Nick


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