https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101542
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2021-07-21
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #0)
> But sequence_buffer is more broken than that: it also has another
> constructor, sequence_buffer(sequence_buffer&) that has different semantics:
> it flushes the source first. So if you only ever use non-const
> sequence_buffer objects, never modify a copied-from object, and never do
> anything that would call the sequence_buffer(const sequence_buffer&)
> constructor, it will appear to work. And that's what this test was relying
> on.
This constructor is similar to how std::auto_ptr "worked" and it was the source
of numerous defect reports and problems. It was removed from the standard years
ago and replaced with something that worked.
> we don't have any code
> that uses __gnu_cxx::sequence_buffer or __gnu_cxx::rope
I doubt anybody does. It's ancient and not really maintained now.
We can probably make it move-aware though.
