cqwrteur
cqwrteur
> Yep, I just looked at the current `next` (after #721, i.e. [98121f6](https://github.com/cppfastio/fast_io/commit/98121f646b122706652924efac24fc661935fc78)), and `erase` looks fine to me now. I didn't look at anything else this time. You should...
https://github.com/cppfastio/fast_io/blob/next/include/fast_io_core_impl/allocation/c_malloc.h#L118
> I just took another close look at the code in the `master` branch, in order to update my blog post ["Who uses P2786 and P1144 trivial relocation?"](https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2024/06/15/who-uses-trivial-relocation/) with a...
I have moved the implementation from next to main for just this vector. It still needed to be finished for the container support, and it is still an ongoing process....
Whatever. I would follow what the standard says about semantics. I do not have a strong opinion.
In the next branch and the updated master, I just use allocate_at_least instead of reallocate. There is no reallocate any more.
> In the meantime I learned that there are architectures where `intptr_t` and `size_t` have different size, but that might be out of scope for WIT, even though I wouldn't...
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/I-present-a-novel-calling-convention-nam/10433601?q=wincall
> What happens if you enable `-mmulti-value`? IIRC we use a different calling convention there, which passes structures in registers. Nothing changes. It is an ABI issue.
@yamt Hello. Can you start the CI for me? Thank you