From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102458 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2018 22:01:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 102446 invoked by uid 89); 6 Apr 2018 22:01:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1117, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 22:01:04 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F00E14068027; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 22:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC6E2023227; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 22:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] Add gdb::string_view To: Simon Marchi References: <20180330214647.485-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20180330214647.485-3-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <01346239-a0d8-055f-7b6c-86ac48bfc7ac@redhat.com> <7a85c51e05bada7f80daf413c0dd0e6c@polymtl.ca> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <559112fa-ecd7-028c-18f5-fb8a1f0575a2@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 22:01:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7a85c51e05bada7f80daf413c0dd0e6c@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2 On 04/06/2018 09:37 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > Ah, from the name I thought that experimental version contained the code implementing future standards, before they were official... so I'll start from scratch using the version from experimental, does that sounds good? It does. However, there may have been other enhancements, small API changes, and bugfixes to string_view when it was merged to the standard proper (and subsequent DRs), so I'd still recommend perusing the diff a bit. Though if the tests still pass, it'll likely the differences won't matter much. >>>    template<> >>>      struct hash >>> -    : public __hash_base >>> +    : public std::__hash_base >> >> This looks suspiciously like using an internal implementation >> detail of libstdc++.  Where is std::__hash_base defined? >> Does this compile with clang + libc++ ? > > Hmm indeed.  Well, it looks like building with clang + libstdcxx fails.  I'll make sure to test both of these combinations in the next iteration. Thanks. Pedro Alves