This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/15276] Erroneous Comparisons of Negative Characters
- From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 5 May 2004 15:19:13 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/15276] Erroneous Comparisons of Negative Characters
- References: <20040504045136.15276.mckelvey@maskull.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-05-05 15:19 -------
> I'm referring to the current discussion and the way you seem to
> perceive std::string, given your questioning.
My only problem is that I don't know the appropriate typedef, acc! ;)
> But,
> please, don't come and tell me that V3 is correct with respect to the
> standard specification because someone else is doing the same.
No, I think v3 is strictly speaking incorrect.
But I also think that typedef-ed or not-typedef-ed ;) v3 basic_string
lives in a world full of C strings, compared using strcmp and co (I'm
particularly concerned by the two string::compare overloads comparing
*this with a C string) and full of other respectable implementations
that are all strictly speaking incorrect all in the very same way
(that sketched by Josuttis, p.690, by the way)
Honestly, I don't feel like putting my name on a patch touching this,
at least not so quickly: I sent a message to comp.std.c++.
However, I understand your point of view, I know your position in the
committee, and your status of v3 maintainer. If you want to go ahead
I will not try to stop you.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15276