This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: mrs at windriver dot com (Mike Stump)
- Subject: Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:08:48 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: gdr at codesourcery dot com, Oliver dot Kellogg at vs dot dasa dot de, aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, rssh at gvinpin dot grad dot kiev dot ua
> > | The standard is irrelevant in this case. What Oliver said must be
> > | true, must be true, really. Just meeting the standard is fine in many
> > | cases, however, at times, we do want to do more than the standard.
> > You're making a wish and I understand that.
Mike Stump writes:
> No, I'm doing more than that. I am stating a release requirement, and
> also stating the current behavior of our compiler, and I suspect every
> C++ compiler out there.
> > But that doesn't make the current behaviour a bug as far as the
> > standard is concerned.
> I know that. Maybe you thought I was commenting on the demangled
> version of the name, I was not. I was merely commenting on the
> already implemented behavior of the compiler and Alexandre's remark.
Some developers seem to think that if the standard permits us to implement
a feature in a useless way, and we do so, that we therefore do not have
The standard only sets a minimum requirement. When the standard says
that a feature may be implemented in an implementation-defined manner,
the assumption was that the feature be implemented in an
implementation-defined useful way, not an implementation-defined useless
Taking out a useful implementation and replacing it by a useless one
would be a regression.