This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [v3] Remove uses of <cstddef> as an implementation detail

From: Johannes Singler <singler at kit dot edu>
To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:29:14 +0200
Subject: Re: [v3] Remove uses of <cstddef> as an implementation detail
References: <4C080053.9010907@oracle.com> <4C09C84B.80506@redhat.com> <8168B387-DAF5-4B87-BF58-6F1EC37432C2@oracle.com>

Paolo Carlini wrote:
> It is of course Ok, at least for now.
> 
> Could be the reason of a weird issue reported by Johannes Singler
> which didn't make any sense to me (I don't have any machine running
> those glibcs), sorry about that.

Well, YaST says that glibc 2.9-2.12.1 (all automatic updates installed)
is installed on my machines, and they do show these problems.  glibc 2.9
was released on Nov 13, 2008, but the bug was fixed only on Dec 29,
2008.  So there might also be affected systems running glibc 2.9, and I
really wonder why it worked on any openSuse 11.1.

<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44417>

Johannes

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [v3] Remove uses of <cstddef> as an implementation detail
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- [v3] Remove uses of <cstddef> as an implementation detail
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] Remove uses of <cstddef> as an implementation detail
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [v3] Remove uses of <cstddef> as an implementation detail
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]