This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug libstdc++/54025] atomic<chrono::duration> won't compile: chrono::duration::duration() is not C++11 compliant


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54025

--- Comment #13 from Daniel KrÃgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> 2012-07-19 15:18:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Ah! Let's add in CC both Benjamin and Daniel then.

I more and more tend to change my mind: I recommend to ignore the
recommendation of N3303 and to make duration conforming with the current
library spec. The described use-case here makes very much sense to me and
demonstrates to me that N3303 did overreact here. But I would be happy to hear
Benjamin's position as well.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]