https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-04 11:59
---
I'm analyzing the remaining xfails. About generation_prohibited, for vector and
deque, I see the tests failing only on the two forms of erase. But in that
case, the Standard (*) says that: Throws: Nothing
--- Comment #22 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-19 10:49
---
Update: per LWG 1170, for basic_string we are back to POD types only, not the
much larger class of literal types,
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 10:14
---
(In reply to comment #18)
It does happen when swapping arrays. I believe that array::swap does have a
strong requirement via 23.2.1 p 10, but have xfailed this for the moment.
In that case we have clearly
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 10:46
---
... I meant, still copy constructor, copy assignment, etc, can't throw ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 11:03
---
In the meanwhile, I double checked N3000 for basic_string: any literal type
will be allowed, thus if we want to use this type of framework for C++0x we
have first to make sure that the types conform to the
--- Comment #17 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-01 03:39 ---
Subject: Bug 21772
Author: bkoz
Date: Fri Jan 1 03:38:58 2010
New Revision: 155545
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155545
Log:
2009-12-31 Benjamin Kosnik b...@redhat.com
PR
--- Comment #18 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-01 03:54 ---
multiset error
... was bogus. I adjusted the traits to fix this.
The std::array error seems indeed bogus: if I'm not wrong, it happens when
swapping arrays, and there are no guarantees that the operation
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-17 08:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=19333)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19333action=view)
part 2
diff after merge of part 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-17 09:37 ---
Subject: Bug 21772
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Dec 17 09:37:16 2009
New Revision: 155306
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155306
Log:
2009-12-16 Benjamin Kosnik b...@redhat.com
PR
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-17 09:58
---
The std::array error seems indeed bogus: if I'm not wrong, it happens when
swapping arrays, and there are no guarantees that the operation doesn't throw
for std::array, because it's requires to just swap the
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-16 10:14
---
(In reply to comment #10)
Results on x86_64/linux or x86_64/darwin10.2
Status:
FAIL: 23_containers/array/requirements/exception/generation_prohibited.cc
execution test
--- Comment #13 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-12-16 11:14
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Some are really puzzling... Hard to believe something is wrong in array, for
example.
I haven't looked into it, but the problem in array could be bug 41449
--
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 03:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=19319)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19319action=view)
c++0x container requirement testing, eh
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 03:34 ---
Tweak summary, mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 03:36 ---
Results on x86_64/linux or x86_64/darwin10.2
Status:
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/requirements/exception/propagation_consistent.cc
execution test
FAIL:
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 05:17 ---
Subject: Bug 21772
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Dec 16 05:16:46 2009
New Revision: 155283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155283
Log:
2009-12-15 Benjamin Kosnik b...@redhat.com
PR
--- Comment #7 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-27 23:07
---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Use this technique. In fact, if you can, use my code.
In fact, Howard already mentioned that, at some point. To be clear, and avoid
misunderstandings, I
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-21 09:26 ---
Also see libstdc++/32017 for some additional details.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-21 15:58 ---
This is now integrated, but the tests are still ad-hoc. We need a more
consistent application of eh-safety tests.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-21 17:16
---
Just adding a throwing allocator (especially one that throws
randomly like this one) will not test the library guarantees anywhere
nearly as effectively as the STLPort tests do. The technique is
outlined in
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-21 18:12 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Use this technique. In fact, if you can, use my code.
In fact, Howard already mentioned that, at some point. To be clear, and avoid
misunderstandings, I want to clearly state that I consider
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26 17:07
---
Created an attachment (id=8972)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8972action=view)
pb_assoc's throwing allocator
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26
20:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
24 matches
Mail list logo
