This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: More test results...
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:44:11 +0000
- Subject: Re: More test results...
- References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1020314071946.1004D-100000@taarna.cygnus.com>
>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:
>> No, but the patch under discussion changes several static data members to
>> be inherited, so the mangled name is different. If the default is wrong
>> for a type, it must be overridden in the (derived) specialization, so the
>> mangled name depends on whether or not the default is correct.
> Hmm. Well, numeric_limits only has meaning as a specialization. For the
> required specializations, no derivation is required. It stands to reason
> that non-required, user-defined specializations would also not be
> derivations.
True. But if it only has meaning as a specialization, why was the change
useful in the first place?
> The idea that now __numeric_limits_base* is in the exported symbols list
> is the bit that personally makes me nervous. I thought this was the part
> that you were nervous about.
I was concerned about changing the mangled name of, say,
std::numeric_limits<std::string>::is_integer
Jason