Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

P1029 move = bitcopies #359

Closed
wg21bot opened this issue Feb 12, 2019 · 14 comments
Closed

P1029 move = bitcopies #359

wg21bot opened this issue Feb 12, 2019 · 14 comments

Comments

@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Feb 12, 2019

P1029R0 SG14 [[move_relocates]] (Niall Douglas)

@wg21bot wg21bot added this to the 2019-02 milestone Feb 12, 2019
@wg21bot wg21bot added the LEWGI label Feb 12, 2019
@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Feb 12, 2019

P1029R1 [[move_relocates]] (Niall Douglas)

@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Jun 23, 2019

P1029R2 move = relocates (Niall Douglas)

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added EWGI LEWGI and removed LEWGI labels Jul 13, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer commented Jul 13, 2019

The ABI break highlighted in R2 (when applying the feature to existing components) needs LEWG visibility.

@brycelelbach
Copy link
Collaborator

@brycelelbach brycelelbach commented Jul 14, 2019

What groups have seen this paper?

Can this bug please be updated with information about when and where it has been seen, and with links to the relevant minutes? Thanks.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer commented Jul 14, 2019

According to the author, this paper is a subset of P1631 Object detachment and attachment #551.
P1144 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy #43 is more ambitious than the present paper.

@brycelelbach
Copy link
Collaborator

@brycelelbach brycelelbach commented Jul 17, 2019

Cologne 2019-07 LEWGI Minutes

P1029R2 Move Relocation: Design Feedback

Champion: Niall Douglas

Minute Taker: Ruslan Arutyunyan

Start Overview: 07-17 15:19

Start Polling: 15:26

POLL: We understand and accept that = relocates changes the ABI of a type, and thus we will be unable to apply this feature to existing standard library facilities (such as unique_ptr) or remove it from new facilities without accepting a standard library ABI break.

Attendance: 23

End: 15:30

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed this from the 2019-07 milestone Aug 26, 2019
@brycelelbach brycelelbach removed the LEWGI label Oct 29, 2019
@theres-waldo
Copy link
Collaborator

@theres-waldo theres-waldo commented Nov 7, 2019

EWG-I in Belfast

Given WG21's limited time constraints, should we encourage the author to continue work in this direction?
|SF|F|N|A|SA|
|7|3|0|0|0|

Do we want an opt-in mechanism for propagation from bases/members (not necessarily in this paper)?
|SF|F|N|A|SA|
|3|5|2|0|0|

Should =relocates work with types that have virtual destructors?
|SF|F|N|A|SA|
|2|4|2|1|0|

Do we approve of the direction for permitting passing =relocates types into C functions?
|SF|F|N|A|SA|
|2|5|1|2|0|

Given the current state of the paper + our current feedback, do we believe this paper is ready for EWG?
|SF|F|N|A|SA|
|6|3|1|1|0|

@theres-waldo theres-waldo added EWG and removed EWGI labels Nov 7, 2019
@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Jan 18, 2020

P1029R3 move = bitcopies (Niall Douglas)

@wg21bot wg21bot added this to the 2020-02 milestone Jan 18, 2020
@jfbastien jfbastien changed the title P1029 SG14 [[move_relocates]] P1029 move = bitcopies Jan 22, 2020
@jfbastien
Copy link
Collaborator

@jfbastien jfbastien commented Jan 22, 2020

Please forward along with P1144 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy #43. It would be good to merge papers.

@jfbastien jfbastien added EWGI and removed EWG labels Jan 22, 2020
@ned14

This comment has been hidden.

@theres-waldo theres-waldo added this to Unscheduled in EWG-I Prague Feb 7, 2020
@ned14

This comment has been hidden.

@theres-waldo
Copy link
Collaborator

@theres-waldo theres-waldo commented Feb 7, 2020

Based on the email thread with @jfbastien, we should look at P1029 and P1144 together. I'm still waiting to hear back about whether a champion for P1144 will be available in Prague.

@erichkeane erichkeane moved this from Unscheduled to Thursday PM in EWG-I Prague Feb 13, 2020
@erichkeane
Copy link
Collaborator

@erichkeane erichkeane commented Feb 13, 2020

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

We concluded that P1029 needs a revision and another visit to EWGI, however it should not have its progress through the committee linked to P1144.

@jfbastien
Copy link
Collaborator

@jfbastien jfbastien commented Dec 8, 2020

Through a mailing list discussion, the author has let me know that they do not intend to move this paper forward. I'm therefore closing this issue, with the expectation that we can re-open it if another person wants to champion it.

Part of the discussion revolved around [[trivial_abi]] ad the feedback received in this LLVM review and linked patches. There's substantial discussion to catch up to and summarize. Where it applies to this paper, the feedback needs to be addressed.

@jfbastien jfbastien closed this Dec 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
EWG-I Prague
Thursday PM
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
7 participants