search for: iteratortype

...ybe you could try > bringing that into tree? The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage experience from LLVM in order to inform the C++ proposal, I don't have "what will eventually be in C++" to propose for LLVM. Well, I'd expect some "range<IteratorType>" template with .begin() and .end() methods, but I don't even know what name that template will have. I'm not sure this part of the discussion is on-topic for Chris's thread, since it's not related to a potential problem with enabling C++ language features. (Not having a ra...

...n at googlers.com> wrote: > The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage > experience from LLVM in order to inform the C++ proposal, I don't have > "what will eventually be in C++" to propose for LLVM. Well, I'd expect > some "range<IteratorType>" template with .begin() and .end() methods, > but I don't even know what name that template will have. Ah, I wasn't aware that it wasn't mostly stabilized. As you pointed out, this isn't critical, so we don't need to rush it then. > I'm not sure this part of...

...inging that into tree? > > The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage > experience from LLVM in order to inform the C++ proposal, I don't have > "what will eventually be in C++" to propose for LLVM. Well, I'd expect > some "range<IteratorType>" template with .begin() and .end() methods, > but I don't even know what name that template will have. > > I'm not sure this part of the discussion is on-topic for Chris's > thread, since it's not related to a potential problem with enabling > C++ language f...

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > some version of GCC and later (linux folks should pick?) 4.6 is the official compiler on Ubuntu 12.04 (released 04/2012), which is the latest Long Term Support release (which come out every 2 years, with 3 years desktop support and 5 years server support), so I wouldn't push farther than that on Linux for

...ee? >> >> The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage >> experience from LLVM in order to inform the C++ proposal, I don't have >> "what will eventually be in C++" to propose for LLVM. Well, I'd expect >> some "range<IteratorType>" template with .begin() and .end() methods, >> but I don't even know what name that template will have. >> >> I'm not sure this part of the discussion is on-topic for Chris's >> thread, since it's not related to a potential problem with enabling >...

...bt it would be any shorter or faster to write (and especially to execute) then the spirit example for note. std/tr1/boost::regex (the C++ standard): // dynamic regex, so it is slow in comparison to other alternatives bool parse_test(std::string &testStr, myPair &ret) { match_results<IteratorType> m; regex e(regexStr); bool successful = regex_match(testStr.begin(),testStr.end(),m,e,match_extra); if(successful) { float f; vector<int> &i_list = myPair.second; f = atof(m[1].c_str()); myPair.first=f; for(int i = 2; i < what.captures(2).size(); ++i)...

On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:50 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Dunbar<daniel at zuster.org> > wrote: >> This is too heavy, and we don't need the extra features, and regexec >> is well tested and much more standard. Unless there is an >> overwhelming > > 'regexec' I had never heard of, figured it was a library, turns

It's seems like a quiet and peaceful day, lets stir things up a bit :) How crazy would it be for us to start using basic C++'11 language features (but not C++'11 library features) in LLVM: things like auto, rvalue-refs, lambdas, etc? I think that we can keep things well defined with a few simple requirements: language features must be supported by MSVC 2010 and later, some version of