This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Fix std::pair std::is_copy_assignable behavior

From: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:32:12 +0200
Subject: Re: Fix std::pair std::is_copy_assignable behavior
References: <51687815 dot 6030507 at gmail dot com> <5169B02E dot 1060802 at gmail dot com> <CAAiZkiD9z_bL3rOUMgdV+LQX3xt1jc+FCuZbJ8k9aWy3bMYvtg at mail dot gmail dot com>

On 04/14/2013 03:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

Does DR 1402 resolution generalization need a Standard committee validation
first ?

I cannot see why we would want otherwise :-)

-- Gaby

I rather wonder if gcc only accept modifications that has been validatedby the Standard committee first or if we can first apply themodification to challenge it as much as possible while discussing aboutit at the same time.

Of course I ask because the compiler modification has a relativelylimited (bad) impact like libstdc++ testsuite have shown.

References:
- Fwd: Fix std::pair std::is_copy_assignable behavior
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: Fix std::pair std::is_copy_assignable behavior
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]