https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #10)
that's exactly what you'll test, since iterator_traits is not guaranteed to
be sfinae-friendly.
N.B. that's changed for C++14.
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
I'm still not motivated to implement this request though.
It would break too much code.
If people really insisted (which they don't),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-28
09:40:36 UTC ---
Interesting, thanks.
By the way, I would guess Sylvain' email doesn't work anymore, thus it's
unlikely that he can give us his feedback ;) (or does he
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-28
09:57:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
An iterator is either a pointer or a class with the
typedefs.
Or a type for which iterator_traits has been specialized?
I'm not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-10-28
10:18:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #10)
An iterator is either a pointer or a class with the
typedefs.
Or a type for which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #14 from sylvain.pion at sophia dot inria.fr 2011-10-29 04:22:49
UTC ---
(@Paolo : I still receive email at my old address, so far)
I don't have a strong opinion on this. It's certainly nice to have a strongly
compliant mode to make
--- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-03-09 15:51
---
Created an attachment (id=15284)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15284action=view)
make nested iterator typedefs private in debug mode
It's accepts implementation-defined not accepts invalid -
--- Comment #8 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-03-09 15:52
---
Created an attachment (id=15285)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15285action=view)
new test
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #9 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2008-03-09 20:28 ---
Sorry to be pedantic, but could this be added to _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC. I've
previously tended to assume that _GLIBCXX_DEBUG should change only flag code
that should fail in non-debug mode, but fails to be detected,
--- Comment #5 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-04-17 16:48 ---
I've done a bit of research into this. Looks like, as Andrew says the standard
doesn't have much to say on the issue. Any method of removing this is going to
make some other things a bit more messy I think, and I
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-04-17 17:04 ---
I also had a look lately, and probably I'm coming to your same conclusions...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-17 17:00 ---
IIRC iterator is an implemention defined type so this is valid.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247
--- Comment #2 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-03-17 17:19 ---
Depending on how you read it, 24.3.1 looks to me like it might require that. It
says that iterator_traits is defined to include:
typedef typename Iterator::value_type value_type;
and that it is specialised for
--- Comment #3 from sylvain dot pion at sophia dot inria dot fr 2007-03-17
17:35 ---
I'm not sure about the standard requirements. My user question is that
I want to develop with GCC as my main compiler, and I want it to catch
non-portability bugs as much as possible.
@Chris: note
--- Comment #4 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-03-17 17:52 ---
The main problem I can see with changing this is that you would have to decide
if you were going to remove the same options from the iterators of all other
standard containers. To not do so would seem to be
17 matches
Mail list logo
