This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const
- From: "zack at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 9 Mar 2004 20:14:49 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const
- References: <20040308221042.14493.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-03-09 20:14 -------
Subject: Re: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
"pme at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> It appears to me that the original reporter wanted what() to return
>> an "intelligible error message" a la icc's "bad allocation", rather
>> than "St9bad_alloc" (which does communicate the same information but
>> in a more cryptic fashion).
>
> Slap a _Z on that thing and we could demangle it automatically. The
> problems with doing so are that the demangling routines are linked in
> when they otherwise wouldn't be (so goes the argument, but I haven't
> verified it myself).
Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than
"St9bad_alloc"? Especially compared to "bad allocation"?
zw
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493