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: "giovannibajo at libero dot it" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 10 Mar 2004 01:12:18 -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 giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-10 01:12 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than
> "St9bad_alloc"? Especially compared to "bad allocation"?
Well, "St9bad_alloc" looks like memory corruption, unless you recognize it's
part of a mangled name. I think it is counter-intuitive. Of course, the best
would be to have a "bad allocation" string stored somewhere.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493