https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> > Also, in , `__cpp_lib_allocator_traits_is_always_equal` is
> > wrongly spelled as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0330a03606d06dc4084e9c8734a549d22676463
commit r10-8022-gd0330a03606d06dc4084e9c8734a549d22676463
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
--- Comment #4 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> > Also, in , `__cpp_lib_allocator_traits_is_always_equal` is
> > wrongly spelled as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> Also, in , `__cpp_lib_allocator_traits_is_always_equal` is
> wrongly spelled as `__cpp_lib_allocator_is_always_equal`.
This is incorrect. We *also* define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
--- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
I agree the problem of 'L' is not likely found as a real issue in practice.
Perhaps this could be forwarded as an issue of the standard which requires
overspecified definitions. I don't find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
