Quuxplusone abandoned this revision.
Quuxplusone added a comment.
I'm re-submitting this as a series of smaller patches that first bring
`` up to date with C++17, and then copy it over
to ``.
In order, these smaller patches are: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46806
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47109
EricWF added inline comments.
Comment at: src/memory_resource.cpp:62
+
+namespace {
+
Quuxplusone wrote:
> 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
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
EricWF added a subscriber: dexonsmith.
EricWF added a comment.
Comment at: src/memory_resource.cpp:62
+
+namespace {
+
We certainly don't want a different definition of the global resources in each
TU. See below.
Comment at:
EricWF added a comment.
I should add that this is the approach I've taken with
`` with no complaints.
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47090
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
EricWF added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47090#1105389, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> > I would prefer if we completed (according to
> > the current standard, not the LFTS spec), and then moved it.
> > Would you be willing to do that instead?
>
> Let me see if I understand. libc++'s ``
Quuxplusone added a comment.
> I would prefer if we completed (according to
> the current standard, not the LFTS spec), and then moved it.
> Would you be willing to do that instead?
Let me see if I understand. libc++'s `` differs
from C++17 `` in at least these ways:
(A) It's missing
EricWF added a comment.
I would prefer if we completed `` (according to
the current standard, not the LFTS spec), and then moved it.
Would you be willing to do that instead?
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47090
___
