https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #14 from TC rs2740 at gmail dot com ---
Well, I would have argued that if the specification doesn't say that a function
does X, then it doesn't do X. NullablePointer/CopyAssignable only means that
the assignment operation must be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It isn't specified whether it is assigned to or not in the destructor, so I
think it's conforming.
D::pointer is required to meet the NullablePointer requirements, which includes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
TC rs2740 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #11 from Geoff Romer gromer at google dot com 2012-12-18 21:59:23
UTC ---
From discussion on the C++ LWG reflector, it appears that the standard's
requirements on library types are intended to apply only during their lifetime,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-26
00:12:46 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Aug 26 00:12:40 2012
New Revision: 190676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190676
Log:
PR libstdc++/54351
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-26
00:29:46 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Aug 26 00:29:41 2012
New Revision: 190681
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190681
Log:
2012-08-26 Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #7 from Geoff Romer gromer at google dot com 2012-08-22 19:49:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Don't forget the array specialization.
I won't :-)
Doesn't the first line of your new destructor
