This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Optimizing C++ Move Functions in Stl
- From: nick <xerofoify at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>, Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:05:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: Optimizing C++ Move Functions in Stl
- References: <0179b9b3-68e0-8de6-9a4b-32885cb8835b@gmail.com> <20181211133704.GZ27131@redhat.com> <6630c9a4-1ff1-3e68-95ec-a815b3337c1a@gmail.com> <20181212125916.GE27131@redhat.com> <CAFk2RUYWjBGQLxjHc6=sWKAQ93ffO-w2iU+gk9c+JYtt13S0zA@mail.gmail.com> <4188bd2b-6304-5b71-866f-2dcb1c7fa481@gmail.com> <CAFk2RUYbdPuT70+BCWeGBHk-LR6q1r+7P6H2QBHjM1oPjXW=QA@mail.gmail.com> <20181212152418.GF27131@redhat.com>
On 2018-12-12 10:24 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/12/18 17:17 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:14, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > I think there's an attempt to ascertain that mostly constructors and
>>> > assignment operators need noexcept-fixes,
>>> > because that noexcept-ness is directly trait-detectable.
>>> > That would match my current understanding of the situation for at
>>> > least pair and tuple.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that's true. I was also asking about is there a TODO list for the current release
>>> of gcc 9 as Jonathan mentioned this work is a stage 1 fix or feature and should wait
>>> until gcc 10 stage 1 so was wondering what work is needed in the current stage 3.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusion with the previous email and hopefully this makes more sense,
>>
>> We don't have a specific TODO list for gcc 9. For general stuff, we have
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LibstdcxxTodo
>> which is a bit out of date...
>
> I think he's asking about GCC in general, not just libstdc++. The
> answer is that fixing bugs is appropriate for stage 3, so pick any
> open bugs from Bugzilla.
>
>
That's right I was asking about all of gcc. Sorry I thought I CCed the gcc devel
list so no wonder so confused.
Sorry,
Nick