On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:46 PM nick <xerofo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2018-12-01 10:32 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause <xerofo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause > >> to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here: > >> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899. > > > > This isn't "the spec", it's a proposed (but incorrect) resolution to a > > defect in the standard. What it proposes may not fix the defect, but I > > think it's an improvement to the std::tuple API anyway, and so I want > > libstdc++ to implement it. "The spec" is the C++ standard, but it > > explicitly allows implementations to add stronger > > exception-specifications where a function is known not to throw. > > > > Thanks for the patch. Something this small could be accepted without a > > copyright assignment, but as it seems like you're interested in > > contributing more (which is great!) you should be aware of the legal > > prerequisites for larger contributions (which also applies to several > > small contributions, even if each one is trivial). See > > https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for details, and let me know if > > you have any questions about that. > > > > Jonathan, > > My only question remains is for copyright is it per patch or just one time. > > My other question is related to the noexcept parts and that either I or > you should move and CC the other involed list i.e. the llibstdc++ list.
You can submit one copyright assignment per patch ... if you're a masochist. The recommended approach is a single "Futures" copyright assignment for all current and future patches. Thanks, David
