This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com
- Subject: Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:10:24 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Oliver dot Kellogg at vs dot dasa dot de, aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at codesourcery dot com, rssh at gvinpin dot grad dot kiev dot ua
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Cc: Oliver.Kellogg@vs.dasa.de, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
> firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:51:11 -0500 (EST)
> Taking out a useful implementation and replacing it by a useless one
> would be a regression.
> Nope, and nope.
In the first case, yes the expectation is that implementors will vend
implementations with as much quality as they can stand to offer,
If the second case, if what you said were the case than a qsort
function that takes quadratic time would not be a regression. I dare
you to try and perpetrate that on users and get away with it. Go try
it, you will discover Joe is right and that you are wrong.
> who is to judge what is useful and not useful,
The maintainer acting on some sort of behalf of the users working in
conjunction with other implementors, and more loosely with other users
of other implementations. This is as it has always been, and will
> I don't think we can simply say that the standard says that impl
> defined things must do what Joe thinks is useful :-)
That's right, but we can say that what gcc should do what Joe says is
This whole thread is silly. It is silly because it is a waste of
time; we have no serious proposal to break name() to return empty