http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #1 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-13 22:22:54
UTC ---
Created attachment 27394
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27394
Quick and dirty proof-of-concept patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #3 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-14 02:40:03
UTC ---
Can you point me to where libstdc++ mainline lives these days? trunk and a
couple other branches I've checked don't have that line in hashtable_policy.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #4 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-14 04:41:19
UTC ---
Created attachment 27395
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27395
POC for mainline
Never mind, I was looking in tr1 instead of bits.
Yes, it's a bit more tricky in ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #5 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-14 05:05:58
UTC ---
Created attachment 27396
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27396
Another approach
Actually, a much simpler and cleaner change might be along these lines.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-14
10:52:28 UTC ---
Can we avoid deriving from unary_function and binary_function, no big deal as
an implementation detail, but are deprecated in C++11, I would rather *remove*
uses. Also, did you run the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-14
10:59:15 UTC ---
I really do believe that we want to leave the stuff in stl_function.h alone and
have something very neat in namespace __detail, in hashtable_policy.h, probably
a single overloaded temp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-14
13:12:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27402
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27402
Draft
Something like this, very lightly tested so far.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27402|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #11 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-15
02:03:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 27407
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27407
Another simple test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Eugene Toder changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27395|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #14 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-15 10:00:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 15 10:00:19 2012
New Revision: 187515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187515
Log:
2012-05-15 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #16 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-15
12:30:55 UTC ---
Makes sense. I was hoping to avoid copyright assignment by having someone else
do the work :) Thank you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-15
13:11:55 UTC ---
Still, if you mean to contribute, something else maybe, just let use (me) know:
it's just matter of filling a form and waiting a bit. You do it once and then
you are set forever.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-16
02:12:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I was hoping to avoid copyright assignment by having someone else
> do the work :)
That's OK, but in that case I think (and this is just IMHO) it's bet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #19 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-16
02:21:07 UTC ---
Fair point, noted. I believe ideas are not copyrightable, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-16
02:52:26 UTC ---
So please feel free to share ideas. A patch is not an idea though, it's an
implementation. In any case last time I checked the law is not based just on
what you believe ;)
Please d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-16
09:11:06 UTC ---
Jon, I totally agree with everything you found the time to explain, thanks! In
my opinion should even be a FAQ or something!
22 matches
Mail list logo
