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

Cherrypicks for the C++23 IS #6415

Closed
tkoeppe opened this issue Jul 25, 2023 · 29 comments
Closed

Cherrypicks for the C++23 IS #6415

tkoeppe opened this issue Jul 25, 2023 · 29 comments

Comments

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jul 25, 2023

Please list any commits since N4950 that should be cherrypicked into the C++23 IS. This should only happen for fixes of technical faults and important clarifications.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Jul 25, 2023

f61a2c8

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 25, 2023

ae3f6e8 the xrefs to [container.requirements.general] are baffling nonsense, because that subclause doesn't define any of the things that the cross-references are trying to refer to.

Similarly, 708cacb (not merged yet, see #6255) and maybe edcde07 (also not merged yet, same PR).

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Jul 25, 2023

Is 4fac9f9 the linked version of the first change you mention?

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 25, 2023

Ah yes, sorry, I got the commit from the PR, which isn't the merged hash.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Jul 27, 2023

We'll also need to reverse-backport the xrefdelta then, so that there will now no longer a diff with C++23.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Aug 29, 2023

#6531 for Unicode examples

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 7, 2023

Making a manual change similar to 9369ba1 (fix order of feature test macros).

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 7, 2023

1430209 for ISO/CS-03

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 7, 2023

7ed9cbf for ISO/CS-04

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

258290e for ISO/CS-29

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

c39f5b0 for ISO/CS-30

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

b5d6409 for ISO/CS-18

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

722bd4f for JP-25

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

24b090f for JP-24

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

4005215 for JP-23

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

bd7f9a9 for ISO/CS-34

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 8, 2023

#6611 for ISO/CS-39 rescinded, needs more work

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

d29b1fc e128de1 for ISO/CS-08

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

4d603c6 for ISO/CS-09

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

7d4fa24 for ISO/CS-11 and -16, and 583391e for ISO/CS-11

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

4c76193 for ISO/CS-15.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 12, 2023

f672ecf for ISO/CS-35.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 12, 2023

2d61829 partially towards ISO/CS-02.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 13, 2023

4676f76 for ISO/CS-01

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Oct 14, 2023

For removed terms, we need to add the relevant "deleted xrefs" entries in the IS. That means updating the C++2c WD to the new "previous labels" state and deleting the "deleted xrefs" entries there.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Nov 2, 2023

4a6f2e3 for ISO/CS-02

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Nov 16, 2023

eb7f0bc for ISO/CS-17. That should be the last one.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe closed this as completed Nov 16, 2023
@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Nov 16, 2023

What about #6695, maybe not important enough?

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Nov 16, 2023

I did add that, too, but didn't make a note here :-S

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants