Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [fiber] ready for next review
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-05 09:34:23

On 12/5/2015 11:25 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
> On 12/4/2015 11:48 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
>> On 12/4/2015 4:47 AM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
>>> 2015-12-03 22:21 GMT+01:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé
>>> <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>:
>>>> Yes, in the documentation.
>>> documentation might need some updates - my announcement was primarly
>>> focused to the source code
>> Fair enough, I was misguided by the "ready for next review" subject as
>> well as the announcement that requests from the review have been
>> addressed. This is obviously not the case, but we can still make a lot
>> of progress based on source code adjustments only.
> While tracing overload resolution inside the library, I noticed a
> regression in the way rvalues are handled (some of the intervening are
> not in Boost.Context).

Ugh, I should double check before sending... What I meant here is that
some of the intervening pieces (the INVOKE related stuff) are now in
Boost.Context detail namespace, so this issue affects both libraries.

> When an argument whose type is deduced as `T&&`
> is used in a function type, like with `result_of`, it has to be
> specified as `T&&`. If the rvalue reference is omitted then
> cv-qualifiers will be dropped, and arrays and functions will turn into
> pointers.
> Note this issue overlaps with already reported issues on incorrect
> result type computations, and invalid decay-copying.


Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at