This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Placement new[] weirdness
- To: pooh at msu dot ru
- Subject: Re: Placement new[] weirdness
- From: mrs at wrs dot com (Mike Stump)
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:59:33 -0700
- Cc: egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com
> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:49:18 +0400 (MEDT)
> From: Andrey Slepuhin <pooh@msu.ru>
> Well, may be comp.std.c++ more appropriate place for discussion,
> But indeed we have two different problems:
> 1) Whether C++ standard is well-formed on this topic.
? comp.std.c++ was created and exists for this purpose. Please use
it. I don't mind discussion about the standard here, if the people
know it inside and out and want to talk about making g++ not follow it
because of bugs in the Standard and the like, but your message isn't
that, therefore the redirect.
> 2) If clause 18.4.1.3 of standard is right, then egcs is wrong.
Or another possibility is that you're confused. If egcs is wrong,
then egcs-bugs is the address to submit bug reports, not egcs. A bug
report has a testcase that shows the bug and a short description of
the wrong behavior and what you expect the right answer is. If you
want you can also include a more elaborate explanation of the bug and
a patch and pointers to the Standard.
> Note that I have *concrete* compiler, and all I want is to have this
> compiler conforming to C++ standard.
We believe it does in these respects. I haven't seen a bug report
from you to comment on. If you thought there was a bug, and you want
a response from us, you would include a testcase.
> And I ask egcs people because I have problems with *concrete*
> implementation.
Yes, bug you failed to mention a single problem (in the form of a
testcase) that you have. Sorry, we cannot help you without one.