--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 08:52
---
I am glad it is again normal discussions.
(In reply to comment #93)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Herb
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 09:23
---
(In reply to comment #95)
| | Herb Sutter's opinion (N1792) is a little different. He thinks that
| | ADL should not work in the OP's example, because distance is simply
| | not an `interface' of std::vector
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 10:50
---
(In reply to comment #97)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| you still fail to provide such a definition
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 14:02
---
(In reply to comment #99)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| | For a class X, all functions, including free functions, that both
| |
| | * `mention' X
| | * are `supplied with' X
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 02:10
---
(In reply to comment #79)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Furthermore, and more importantly, GCC
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 02:32
---
(In reply to comment #82)
Show an official page.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
In particular, bugs caused by invalid code have a simple work-around: fix
the code.
With each release, we try to make G++ conform
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 03:00
---
(In reply to comment #84)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
On Aug 11, 2005, at 10:32 PM, adah at netstd dot com wrote:
What I have not is that a PRoblem
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 03:47
---
(In reply to comment #86)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| What I have not is that a PRoblem resulting from
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 05:12
---
I am not sure whether we can finish here (not to challenge you, but that I am
still a little misunderstood). See below (for pure technical discussions, and
just to reply to you).
(In reply to comment #90
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-11 02:01
---
(In reply to comment #76)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Now to your point. Please notice that my current
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-11 03:51
---
Hi Gaby,
I have read Sutter's Modest Proposal on fixing ADL that you referred to me. If
you had told me earlier about this instead of bluntly telling me this was not a
GCC bug, I would have much more quickly
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-09 10:49
---
(In reply to comment #61)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| --- Additional Comments From adah at netstd
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-09 13:26
---
(In reply to comment #63)
| Do *you* like it?
It is immaterial as far as GCC is concerned. I know where to raise
Why immaterial? I just cannot imagine anybody that *likes* this behaviour.
If no one likes
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-09 13:36
---
(In reply to comment #58)
It serves its users by providing a reliable translator for the language
defined by the standard. Think about the portability implications of
compilers that willy-nilly implement some
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-10 02:40
---
Since I do not think I can find appropriate words to respond to Gaby without
inflaming the discussion, I think I had better suppress my will to argue with
him it for the moment. Not that I want to ignore his
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-10 03:11
---
(In reply to comment #71)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
On Aug 9, 2005, at 10:41 PM, adah at netstd dot com wrote:
Passing this information to the user
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-10 03:34
---
(In reply to comment #73)
encountered the problem before. Not to say understand the problem. As the
very beginning, adding a message like `In instantiation of
std::distance...'
will be helpful
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-10 04:31
---
The error message I am imagining (not sure of its feasibility):
.../stl_iterator_base_types.h: In instantiation of
`std::iterator_traitsstd::vectorint, std::allocatorint ':
.../stl_iterator_funcs.h
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-08 06:19
---
(In reply to comment #52)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| This said, I still cannot think this bug report
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-08 06:31
---
(In reply to comment #53)
I know no one named Paul M. He seems not here, either.
Really sorry that I missed the latest posting on comp.lang.c++.moderated by
Paul Mensonides
The explanation is good enough
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-08 12:56
---
(In reply to comment #56)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| (In reply to comment #53)
| I know no one named
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-09 01:45
---
(In reply to comment #59)
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Does a compiler serve its users or the Standard
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-08 02:26
---
Sorry, but some of you here have not read carefully enough and acted in a
haste. Please test with the following code piece and make a decision AFTER
that:
#include iostream
#include vector
int distance(std
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-08 03:53
---
Sorry for the tone in my previous comment. I guess I was a little heated and
acted in a haste.
This said, I still cannot think this bug report is `INVALID', from a user's
point of view. The test code showed
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-05 05:41
---
(In reply to comment #44)
| However, I still believe it is the problem of the compilers.
Please take ti to the C++ standard committee. The behaviour is that
described by the standard. If you don't like
at netstd dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i386-pc-mingw32
GCC host triplet: i386-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: i386-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23213
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-04 05:27
---
As the reporter of Bug 23213, I want to add my 2 cents (my opinions):
1) This bug is not in libstdc++, but in the C++ compiler.
2) The std::distance (as found by Koenig lookup) does not hide the global one
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-04-18 09:06
---
Function calls, memory barriers, (and lock operations?) are all overheads. I
would like that
* GCC provide extensions so that GCC users can use memory barriers and
threading calls in a platform-independent way
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-02-03 03:30
---
I am not David but let me try to name some possible objections.
* The current code is unsafe on some architectures (DLCP is unsafe)
* For cross-compiler code, users SHOULD have already locked a mutex before
--- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-02-03 03:42
---
I want to emphasize here again one principle of C and C++: Trust the
programmers, and allow them to do low-level tunings for performance. Or what is
the purpose of C++ (when compared with high-level languages
30 matches
Mail list logo
