This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: Dima Volodin <dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru>
- Subject: RE: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: Jon Cast <jcast at ou dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:45:59 -0600
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Dima Volodin wrote:
>>And users shouldn't claim the compiler has a bug when it just
>>implements an implementation-defined semantics the way it thinks
>>useful for its purposes.
And compiler authors should remember that compilers exist to support users,
not to give the maintainers something to do.
>And adding some "useful semantics" not defined in the standard to
>standard features is asking for exactly this type of claims.
I'm sorry; maybe I'm missing something. I thought the discussion was about
a *required* function with undefined semantics. It seems to me that there
has to be some kind of deterministic behavior. If this behavior exists,
what is wrong with documenting it?