--- Comment #13 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-11 00:15 ---
Yes, I agree. I think it would be good to add the overloads, they can always be
adjusted before 4.6 if they don't match the wording Alisdair proposes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42925
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-10 23:48
---
Jon, is this actually GB 99? Trivially adding something like (& co, likewise
for shared_ptr):
template
inline bool
operator!=(const unique_ptr<_Tp, _Tp_Deleter>& __x, nullptr_t)
{ return __x.get
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-02 01:04
---
Ok, I guess we can close this.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-01 19:40
---
I see. In principle I think the user would like to see only
operator!=(int, int)
and indeed:
template
bool
operator!=(const unique_ptr<_Tp, _Tp_Deleter>&,
const unique_ptr<_Up, _
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-01 19:31 ---
It does seem like it would be helpful to include templates in the list of all
candidates.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42925
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-01 17:39
---
Let's keep this open for one sec, in case Jason believes that list of
candidates could be actually made less confusing to the user.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42925
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-01 17:38
---
Ok, agreed...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42925
--- Comment #6 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-01 17:36
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Jon, is there a thread on the reflector about related issues? I spotted
> something but couldn't exactly remember...
LWG 834 is about comparing unique_ptr::pointer to nullptr_t
LWG 130
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-01 17:25
---
Jon, is there a thread on the reflector about related issues? I spotted
something but couldn't exactly remember...
Anyway, just want to add that I do not see why the C++ front-end, for some
reason, decides to
--- Comment #4 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-01 17:22
---
there is this comparison function:
template
bool operator!=(const unique_ptr& x, const unique_ptr& y);
What should T2 and D2 be deduced as, in the conversion from nullptr_t to
unique_ptr ?
Or to put it another
--- Comment #3 from gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se
2010-02-01 17:19 ---
I think the code is valid.
The unique_ptr(nullptr_t) constructor should take the 0 and build an empty
unique_ptr object that is compared with ptr.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-01 17:01
---
I think the code is invalid. In 4.4 the expression (ptr != 0) converted ptr to
an unspecified-bool-type and compared that to 0.
In 4.5 the impicit conversion has been removed, and you need to say
static_cast(ptr)
--- Comment #1 from gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se
2010-02-01 16:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=19774)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19774&action=view)
Test case demonstrating the problem.
compile with
g++ -std=c++0x -c test.cpp
to demonstrat
13 matches
Mail list logo
