[PATCH] D55045: Add a version of std::function that includes a few optimizations.

[Jordan Soyke]

I would be in favor of splitting the implementations up, should I move them
to different headers or just one giant ifdef in this header?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:03 PM Louis Dionne via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> ldionne requested changes to this revision.
> ldionne added a comment.
> This revision now requires changes to proceed.
>
> I'd like to see benchmarking results that show the benefit of this
> approach.
>
> Also, it's not clear to me that trying to "merge" the two implementations
> is the right choice. Maybe we want a straight up different implementation
> (i.e. replace `std::function` as a whole instead of having many `#ifdef`s
> in the existing `std::function`).
>
>
> Repository:
>   rCXX libc++
>
> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
>   https://reviews.llvm.org/D55045/new/
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D55045
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-commits/attachments/20181129/1d9777e2/attachment-0001.html>