ldionne added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49317#1180200, @mclow.lists wrote:
> I am not in favor of this patch. > > I'm in favor of fixing the problem that Arthur has described, but not like > this, for the following reasons: > > - Conceptually, these are (similar to) "Allocator-based versions of the > algorithms proposed in P0040 <https://wg21.link/P0040>", and should > (probably? possibly?) look more like them. > - Mainly, though, I think that the goal of this patch (which is see as > 'getting to memcpy') is not the direction that libc++ should take. Instead, > we should be writing simple loops that the compiler can optimize into a call > to memcpy if it chooses. Having calls to `memcpy` in the code paths makes it > impossible to "constexp-ify" this code. (See > https://libcxx.llvm.org/cxx2a_status.html (comments on `std::copy` and > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25165). Marshall makes a great point about `memcpy` and `constexpr`... We're trying to make the default allocator constexpr-friendly for C++20, and this doesn't play very nicely with that. Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D49317 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
