This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Patch] libstdc++/20787 (DR 130)
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:23:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch] libstdc++/20787 (DR 130)
- References: <431845BB.9010408@suse.de> <m264tjrrkn.fsf@greed.local>
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
>Isn't this a binary incompatible change?
>
>
What do you mean, exactly? Nothing of this goes in the library, only the
headers are affected. Neither the memory allocation or other internal
policies are going to change.
>>- void
>>+ iterator
>> erase(iterator __position)
>>- { _M_t.erase(__position); }
>>+ { return _M_t.erase(__position); }
>>
>>
>It might happen to be OK on some platforms, but I doubt it would be
>safe on all.
>
>
Again, please explain.
>There are other changes that look unsafe, in fact most of the header
>changes.
>
Again, I don't understand. Which changes look *safe* to you?
Paolo.