Reserve __is_trivially_relocatable for a builtin?

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 02/02/19 01:25 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 01:12, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106#c15 , Arthur O'Dwyer
>> suggests that the name __is_trivially_relocatable would be a good name for
>> a future builtin, and we should use something else for this class. Does
>> anyone have an opinion on whether we should rename and what other name we
>> should use? I am tempted by __is_trivially_relocatable__,

Inconsistent with everything else in libstdc++.

>> _Is_trivially_relocatable

This would be fine.

>> or ___is_trivially_relocatable ...

Definitely not this  :-)

>
>We have a mixture of __do_{your chosen name goes here} and {your
>chosen name goes here}_impl
>throughout the library. There's no real chosen policy for it. I have
>strong objections to playing
>games with the amount of underscores, library maintainers don't see
>them. :) My suggestion
>is to rename the current one to __is_trivially_bitwise_relocatable.

That would be OK too.