vsapsai added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/vector:300 +{ + using _Alloc_traits = allocator_traits<_Alloc>; + for (; __begin1 != __end1; ++__begin1, (void)++__begin2) ---------------- Quuxplusone wrote: > vsapsai wrote: > > Have you checked why `using` is accepted in C++03 mode? The tests are > > passing but I expected a compiler warning and didn't investigate further. > I talked with Glen Fernandes about this on Slack the other day. I think the > deal is that `make check-cxx` runs only the `-std=c++2a` tests, and if you > want `-std=c++03` you have to run them manually with `llvm-lit > --param=-std=c++03 -sv path/to/tests`. Which of course I didn't do. :) > If there's a more foolproof way of automatically testing libc++ in *all* > compiler modes, I'd like to know about it. > > Fixed! The test suite didn't detect anything even in C++03 mode because of [`-Wno-c++11-extensions`](https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/ffbb91bb640b1b0425a91aa70e2a6a2e0f7244e0/utils/libcxx/test/config.py#L922). Thanks for using typedef instead. ================ Comment at: include/vector:542 +template<class _Tp, class _Allocator> +struct __vector_copy_via_memcpy : integral_constant<bool, + (is_same<_Allocator, allocator<_Tp> >::value || !__has_construct<_Allocator, _Tp*, _Tp>::value) && ---------------- Quuxplusone wrote: > vsapsai wrote: > > I think the name `__vector_constructable_via_memcpy` better reflects the > > meaning. It detects cases when individual element construction can be > > safely replaced with memcpy, so it feels more about construct than about > > copy. And `copy_via_memcpy` is too imperative as for me, not really > > conveying it has boolean semantic. > > `copy_via_memcpy` is too imperative for me > > I see your point. However, for background... in my other branch, this trait > is joined by two companions: > ``` > struct __vector_relocate_via_memcpy > struct __vector_destroy_via_noop > ``` > So I'd like a naming scheme that fits all three use-cases comfortably. > > How about just adding the word "should"? > `__vector_should_construct_via_memcpy`, `__vector_should_destroy_via_noop`, > etc? Would that sufficiently address the "too imperative" issue? Yes, "should" is fine as it implies yes/no answer. 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