Optimizing C++ Move Functions in Stl

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 12/12/18 15:05 -0500, nick wrote:
>
>
>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 which is a bit out of date...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.

You did CC the GCC list but I removed it from the CC because I was
only responding to the part of your email about libstdc++.

I see no reason to use a single thread for "what is libstdc++'s
noexcept policy" and "what EasyHacks are there in the rest of the
compiler". They should be two separate threads.