Re: [PATCH][C++] Fix PR29433, make C++ use a lot less time/memory

[Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>]

Hi,

On Sun, 9 Dec 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> | More importantly, we know that this code is in our testsuite, in 
> | libstdc++, and accepted by EDG -- all of which suggests that this 
> | construct is likely in relatively widespread use.  I'm not sure that 
> | it's a good tradeoff to break that code for the sake of a diagnostic 
> | which is explicitly not required by the standard.
> 
> And the code is explicitly invalid.  And we already reject the code,

We don't currently, that's exactly the point of this thread.  We only 
reject it with the hack Richard posted here (and various other versions of 
that patch) and the question now is if we should reject it or not.  As 
there are different opinions even here we should be conservative and 
simply retain current behaviour, IMHO.  Certainly in order to make 
progress on the memory usage front until the C++ language side is cleared 
up.

> and at some point in the past, we regressed and got PR filled for that 
> regression. I don't believe we have to lower the quality to in the 
> search of mimicing EDG.


Ciao,
Michael.