Jan-Benedict Glaw writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Thu, 2023-09-28 10:55:46 +0100, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> poly_int was written before the switch to C++11 and so couldn't
>> use explicit default constructors. This led to an awkward split
>> between poly_int_pod and poly_int. poly_int simply
Hi Richard,
On Thu, 2023-09-28 10:55:46 +0100, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> poly_int was written before the switch to C++11 and so couldn't
> use explicit default constructors. This led to an awkward split
> between poly_int_pod and poly_int. poly_int simply inherited from
> poly_int_pod and
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 08:31:47AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > IIRC the primary reason we settled on gcc-4.8.x was RHEL7/Centos7. With
> > RHEL 7 approaching EOL moving the baseline forward would seem to make sense.
> >
> > I'd want to know if this affects folks using SuSE's enterprise
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:10 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/28/23 11:26, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 9/28/23 05:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> poly_int was written before the switch to C++11 and so couldn't
> >> use explicit default constructors. This led to an awkward split
> >> between
On 9/28/23 11:26, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/28/23 05:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
poly_int was written before the switch to C++11 and so couldn't
use explicit default constructors. This led to an awkward split
between poly_int_pod and poly_int. poly_int simply inherited from
poly_int_pod
On 9/28/23 05:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
poly_int was written before the switch to C++11 and so couldn't
use explicit default constructors. This led to an awkward split
between poly_int_pod and poly_int. poly_int simply inherited from
poly_int_pod and added constructors, with the
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:55:46AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu & x86_64-linux-gnu. Also tested with
> Jakub's vec.h patch with the static_asserts uncommented; there were
> no errors from poly_int-related stuff. OK to install?
LGTM (mostly as the general idea,
poly_int was written before the switch to C++11 and so couldn't
use explicit default constructors. This led to an awkward split
between poly_int_pod and poly_int. poly_int simply inherited from
poly_int_pod and added constructors, with the argumentless constructor
having an empty body. But
