Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/__memory_resource_base:196 + typename __uses_alloc_ctor< + _T1, polymorphic_allocator&, _Args1... + >::type() ---------------- >> (B) It's got different semantics around uses-allocator construction because >> of https://wg21.link/lwg2969 > Issue resolutions should probably be applied to the experimental versions as > well. Okay, I can roll with that. I'll create a new patch that modifies `<experimental/memory_resource>`'s uses-allocator parts per LWG2969 (and my followup DR), without any other diffs. Should `<experimental/memory_resource>` continue caring about `std::experimental::erased_type`, which was in LFTS and LFTSv2 but did not make it into C++17? My kneejerk reaction is "yes". (And at the end of this process, when we copy `<experimental/memory_resource>` into `<memory_resource>`, should `<memory_resource>` care about `erased_type`? My kneejerk reaction is "no".) ================ Comment at: src/memory_resource.cpp:62 + +namespace { + ---------------- EricWF wrote: > We certainly don't want a different definition of the global resources in > each TU. See below. @EricWF: I think all of your comments in this file are the result of misreading "src/memory_resource.cpp" as "include/memory_resource". Or else I *totally* don't understand the current directory organization and you're going to have to instruct me. :) Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D47090 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
