search

cplusplus / papers

ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 paper scheduling and management
632 stars 18 forks source link

P1144 R11 std::is_trivially_relocatable #43

Open jensmaurer opened 5 years ago

jensmaurer commented 5 years ago

P1144R1 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

jensmaurer commented 5 years ago

P1144R2 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

jfbastien commented 5 years ago

This was seen by EWGI in SAN, along with P1029R1 SG14 [[move_relocates]] #359. Interested, provided feedback, will see again.

jensmaurer commented 5 years ago

C++Now 2018 talk: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MWBfmmg8-Yo

jfbastien commented 5 years ago

EWG-I in Kona: Talk to a Core person about lifetime issues.

Should this be mandated on existing STL containers? Might be an ABI break. LEWGI should see this.

Much feedback, still open questions. Should see again.

wg21bot commented 5 years ago

P1144R3 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

wg21bot commented 5 years ago

P1144R4 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

erichkeane commented 4 years ago

EWGI in Prague

We believe that P1029 and P1144 are sufficiently different that they should be advanced separately.

SF F N A SA
7 3 2 0 0

EWGI is OK to have the spelling as an attribute with an expression argument?

SF F N A SA
3 5 1 1 0

EWGI would prefer a contextual keyword?

SF F N A SA
0 0 6 4 0

EWGI thinks the author should explore implementing P1144 as a customizable type trait?

SF F N A SA
0 0 0 9 2

Forward the P1144R5 + feedback given in the room to EWG.

SF F N A SA
1 3 4 1 0

[[weak consensus determined in the room @jfbastien to determine if it counts]]

wg21bot commented 4 years ago

P1144R5 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

wg21bot commented 2 years ago

P1144R6 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

erichkeane commented 1 year ago

This paper was seen by EWGI with P2786 during the February 10th, 2023 evening session in Issaquah.

The following polls were taken:

Given the committee's limited bandwidth, EWGI believes the problem presented in P1144/P2786 is worth solving.

SF F N A SA
10 8 0 0 0

Result: Consensus

EWGI believes the problem being introduced in P1144/P2786 should be solved in a more general way instead of as proposed.

SF F N A SA
3 0 5 6 4

Result: Not Consensus

EWGI believes that the relocatable annotation in P1144R6 is acceptable as an attribute.

SF F N A SA
0 6 4 6 2

Result: Not Consensus

EWGI believes that the relocatable annotation should just 'trust' the user as presented in P1144R6 (aka sharp knife) instead of be diagnosed, as in P2786R0 (aka 'dull knife').

F N A
7 5 6

Result: No obvious preference

Inform the EWG chair that we believe P1144R6 is sufficiently ready to be presented in EWG.

SF F N A SA
0 7 4 3 1

Result: Not Consensus

Inform the EWG chair that we believe P2786R0 is sufficiently ready to be presented in EWG.

SF F N A SA
1 8 3 3 1

Result: Weak Consensus

The chair suggested working with the authors of P2786 to ensure a more unified set of options and pros/cons to EWG. This paper however, was decided as insufficiently ready for EWG.

wg21bot commented 1 year ago

P1144R7 std::is_trivially_relocatable (Arthur O'Dwyer)

wg21bot commented 1 year ago

P1144R8 std::is_trivially_relocatable (Arthur O'Dwyer)

tekinas commented 1 year ago

This is awesome.

wg21bot commented 11 months ago

P1144R9 std::is_trivially_relocatable (Arthur O'Dwyer)

wg21bot commented 7 months ago

P1144R10 std::is_trivially_relocatable (Arthur O'Dwyer)

wg21bot commented 3 months ago

P1144R11 std::is_trivially_relocatable (Arthur O'Dwyer)