[PATCH C++] - SD-6 Implementation Part 3 - .

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi,

On 10/02/2014 10:08 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 02:51 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>> On 10/01/2014 11:28 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 02/09/14 10:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/14 21:46 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>>>>> Index: include/bits/stl_function.h
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- include/bits/stl_function.h    (revision 214680)
>>>>> +++ include/bits/stl_function.h    (working copy)
>>>>> @@ -217,6 +217,10 @@
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>> #if __cplusplus > 201103L
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define __cpp_lib_transparent_operators 201210
>>>>> +#define __cpp_lib_generic_associative_lookup 201304
>>>>
>>>> The generic associative lookup feature is not supported.
>>>>
>>>>> Index: testsuite/experimental/feat-lib-fund.cc
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- testsuite/experimental/feat-lib-fund.cc    (revision 0)
>>>>> +++ testsuite/experimental/feat-lib-fund.cc    (working copy)
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
>>>>> +// { dg-options "-std=gnu++14" }
>>>>> +// { dg-do compile }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <experimental/optional>
>>>>> +#include <experimental/string_view>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#if !__has_include(<experimental/optional>)
>>>>> +#  error "<experimental/optional>"
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +//#if !__has_include(<experimental/net>)
>>>>> +//#  error "<experimental/net>"
>>>>> +//#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +//#if !__has_include(<experimental/any>)
>>>>> +//#  error "<experimental/any>"
>>>>> +//#endif
>>>>
>>>> This can be uncommented, <experimental/any> is available.
>>>>
>>>> OK with those changes.
>>>
>>> Ed, the commit at http://gcc.gnu.org/r215752 doesn't have the
>>> corrections I asked for above and causes a number of test failures,
>>> could you look into it please?
>>>
>>>
>> OK,
>>
>> Here is the patch.
>>
>> Built and tested on x86_64-linux.
>>
>> OK?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> FWIW, I remember a svn tree corruption while getting this patch ready.
>> I should have retested everything in the new tree.
>> Sorry everyone!
>>
> Here is a front-end test patch.
> Built and tested on x86_64-linux.
> OK?
Having double checked that it works to avoid the spurious fail, I'm 
going to apply the patch as obvious.

Thanks,
Paolo.