RE: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()

[Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>]

> From: dewar@gnat.com
> To: dewar@gnat.com, dvv@egcs.dvv.ru, jcast@ou.edu, mrs@windriver.com
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:41:16 -0500 (EST)

> The qsort example misses my point. I am all if favor of doing useful
> things, but the argument that the standard requires doing "useful"
> things, or "deterministic" things is confused.

I don't recall seeing that argument being made, perhaps you can quote
where you thought that was being made.  I think the argument was, `It
seems to me that there has to be some kind of deterministic behavior'
and `Nothing wrong with documenting it. More than that - if you make
this behavior deterministic beyond the scope of the standard, you
really want to not just document it, but also to put considerable
effort into making the compiler detect uses of this determinism and
warn the user about all detected attempts. Then it will be real user
support'

> If you want to argue from the standard,

We aren't.

> If you want to argue on the basis of what is useful, regardless of
> the standard, then that's fine too.

Ok.  No point in arguing, we are in violent agreement.

> In fact I assume that a typical qsort is quadratic in the worst case,
> though hopefully not in the average case.

I was talking about all cases, not worst case.

> I am not clear what the standard has to say about qsort if anything,
> so I would have to look that up.

The one I was reading didn't prohibit one that was quadratic in all
cases.  You mileage, I mean, standard, mary vary.

> I think there is merit in being absolutely clear on what the standard
> does and does not require.

I don't see any disagreement in what the standard says.  Is there any,
was there ever any?