This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/25304] std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature
- From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 8 Dec 2005 16:04:36 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/25304] std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature
- References: <bug-25304-1186@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-08 16:04 -------
Subject: Re: std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature
"sebor at roguewave dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| No, I don't. The standard is clear and most of us seem to think it's "by
| design." Rather I am suggesting is that we might want to discuss with the
whole
| LWG changing the return type as an enhancement.
I think I understand that.
However, I'm looking at the pratical effect. If libstdc++ changes the
return types (correcting the bug) then it will be an ABI breakage.
If LWG considers and agrees on the enhancement, libstdc++ will have to
change again the return types. At the end of the day we would have
two ABI breakages with zero net benefit for existing libstdc++ users.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25304