noted, thanks :)
Best,
Nina
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 22:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 28/04/19 22:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >On 29/04/19 00:18 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> >>On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns
On 29/04/19 00:18 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
>New diff attached.
Thanks, this looks great. I think we can apply this as soon as stage 1
begins (which should be Real Soon Now).
Tested
On 28/04/19 22:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/04/19 00:18 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
New diff attached.
Thanks, this looks great. I think we can apply this as soon as stage 1
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >New diff attached.
>
> Thanks, this looks great. I think we can apply this as soon as stage 1
> begins (which should be Real Soon Now).
Tested on Linux-PPC64, committed to trunk.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 00:18, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> > >New diff attached.
> >
> > Thanks, this looks great. I think we can apply this as soon as stage 1
> > begins (which should
On 24/04/19 11:21 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
New diff attached.
Thanks, this looks great. I think we can apply this as soon as stage 1
begins (which should be Real Soon Now).
Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >> >> >Tested on Linux-PPC64
> >> >> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
> >> >>
> >>
gt;Tested on Linux-PPC64
>> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
>>
>> Thanks, Nina!
>>
>> This looks great, although as I think Ville has explained we won't
>> commit it until the next stage 1, after the GCC 9 release.
>ack
>
&g
ck
> >
> >>
> >> The changes look good, I just have some mostly-stylistic comments,
> >> which are inline below ...
> >>
> >>
> >> >2019-04-13 Nina Dinka Ranns
> >> >
> >> >Adding noexcept-specific
On 16/04/19 17:59 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
>Tested on Linux-PPC64
>Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
Thanks, Nina!
This looks great, although as I
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
> >Tested on Linux-PPC64
> >Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
>
> Thanks, Nina!
>
> This looks great, although as I think Ville h
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 17:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc
> >(nonexistent)
> >+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/tuple/cons/noexcept_specs.cc
> >(working copy)
> >@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
> >+// { dg-options { -std=gnu++2a } }
On 16/04/19 14:08 +0100, Nina Dinka Ranns wrote:
Tested on Linux-PPC64
Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
Thanks, Nina!
This looks great, although as I think Ville has explained we won't
commit it until the next stage 1, after the GCC 9 release.
The changes look
Tested on Linux-PPC64
Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
2019-04-13 Nina Dinka Ranns
Adding noexcept-specification on tuple constructors (LWG 2899)
* libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple:
(tuple()): Add noexcept-specification.
(tuple(const
14 matches
Mail list logo
