similar to: HEADS UP: Dates for removing components from namespace std::experimental

In the thread titled "RFC: Plan for removing components from namespace std::experimental", (started last April) I put forward a timetable for removing things from libc++ that had become duplicates of other things in libc++. Specifically, things that were in namespace "std::experimental" and "std" both (and subtly different in both). In that RFC, I proposed to let a

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > As part of the work on C++17, WG21 released a series of "Technical > Specifications", (TS) which added proposed new features to the standard > library. These were all defined in the namespace 'std::experimental' (and > namespaces inside of that). > > Then, much of these

As part of the work on C++17, WG21 released a series of "Technical Specifications", (TS) which added proposed new features to the standard library. These were all defined in the namespace 'std::experimental' (and namespaces inside of that). Then, much of these features were merged into the main standard, and became part of namespace 'std'. Libc++ now has two

I second Justin's suggestion, but would that happen in LLVM 5 or 6? Just as something to consider, it may also cause spurious errors for people who are relying on the at-version-stability of experimental libraries, causing them to turn off warnings for deprecated code. As C Bergstrom has said, users buy into experimental libraries with the knowledge that the interface or behaviour could

LLVM Weekly - #211, Jan 15th 2018 ================================= If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/211>. Welcome to the two hundred and eleventh issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex

I am developing app which needs to query a timetable. The user specifies where they want to go from (start_station) and to (end_station) and the time (start_time) they wish to leave. My models are as follows: Provdier -> Service -> Run -> Stop <- Station -> = has many Provider = Bus Company Service = eg. Number 10 bus Run = Column on timetable Stop = Cell on timetable Station =

Sure, I guess that splitting the arrayref/stringref headers out is a fine first step. -Chris > On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > Re-writing StringRef / ArrayRef etc to use the exact same API is a good idea long term, but there's a lot of ugly messy details that need to be dealt with. There's thousands of uses of take_front /

Having watched a similar library go through this exact evolution, I really doubt we want to make any split around "things known to be in C++ in the future"... It turns out that this is nearly impossible to predict and precludes a tremendous amount of useful utilities. For example, there is no indication that the range helpers LLVM provides will ever end up in C++'s standard library,

Yes, that proposal makes sense to me: the split would be between things that *are* known to be subsumed into later versions of C++, and therefore are a compatibility library. What do you think about this as an implementation approach: - Rewrite StringRef (et al) to use the exact same APIs as std::string_view. Keep the StringRef name for now. - When cmake detects that C++’17 mode is supported,

I have the following data (a subset of the real data set): structure(list(Date = structure(c(1209625080, 1209641460, 1209652500, 1209676800, 1209682860, 1209692100, 1209706980, 1209722580, 1209726300, 1209739620, 1209762780, 1209765720, 1209770520, 1209791040, 1209812580, 1209829920, 1209837180, 1209848160, 1209854640, 1209859440, 1209870780, 1209887760, 1209901080, 1209921660, 1209929280,

On 29 November 2016 at 16:18, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > I don't like the llvm_strlen approach as it is incompatible with > std::string_view which we may eventually move to. In what way is it incompatible? constexpr StringRef(const char* s) : Data(s), Length(llvm_strlen(s)) {} is equivalent to constexpr string_view(const char* s) : Data(s),

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:14 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Having watched a similar library go through this exact evolution, I >> really doubt we want to make any split around "things known to be in C++ in >> the future"...

Hi Rubyists! I''m quite new to Ruby/Rails thing, so please be patient with me :) -------- (skip to next -------- if you want to quickly see the problem) I am learning by creating something like timetable application (like in school). There are days 1-5 and lessons 1-8. I have to db tables, subjects, which is the list of subjects, and subject_lessons, which is assocation of a subject to

Hi All, I know we're late in the release process, but I've discovered a regression I believe is serious enough to hold the release [1]. The regression is in usages of `__builtin_constant_p` applied to a dereferenced pointer in a constant expression. In certain cases Clang now rejects this as a non-constant expression [2]. This regression will have a larger impact than it initially

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:14 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > Is there actually a valid use case for using the entire Support library > though? > > One thing that splitting solves is that I can have StringRef and ArrayRef > split up and committed by tomorrow. The same can't be said for the entire > Support library :) > Huh? I'm asking what is

Hi Bill, I committed a fix already as r355743 [1], and it fixes `test2` as well. I believe we should merge this into 8.0. /Eric [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/680e865c313a80b6ec329abde61e1f0c66bdc103 On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > The attached patch may help matters, though it now fails because

The pointer could only be null if the length is zero. If the length is zero, you shouldn't be loading it. Defaulting to null instead of "" is also a microoptimization. -Chris > On Sep 25, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >> On Sep 25, 2016, at 9:10 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

<dynarray> was added to the C++14 standard, libc++ implemented it, and then it was removed. Now (from the standard’s point of view), it is in limbo. I would like to move it into std/experimental; to make it clear that it’s not a part of the standard. Any objections? Anyone using it? — Marshall

The upcoming C++1z (probably C++17) standard will not contain several things - most notably auto_ptr. Soon, libc++ will not be providing auto_ptr by default when building in C++1z mode. You'll be able to get it back with a "-D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX17_REMOVED_AUTO_PTR" on your command line, or "#define _LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX17_REMOVED_AUTO_PTR" before including any libc++ header

On Nov 8, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: >> Is the expectation that to utilize this metadata an optimization pass would have to inspect the body of @f and reason about its behavior given <args>? > > Yes. > >> >> If so, then I