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: [patch] fix libstdc++/56278

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
Cc: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:36:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [patch] fix libstdc++/56278
References: <CAH6eHdS9mx0qgX1XQUO8LSVGMazJ_G0YnoWTuotRZM8uTOkyMg@mail.gmail.com> <511AABED.3050805@gmail.com> <511B68AB.7070307@oracle.com>

On 13 February 2013 10:19, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 02/12/2013 09:54 PM, François Dumont wrote:
>>
>>     Of course this is not mandatory but I think _Hash_code_base would be
>> cleaner this way only exposing as public what is required by C++11. It can
>> also wait for 4.9.
>
> I like it. Thanks Francois. If Jon has no objections over the next day or
> so, please go ahead.

No objection, I agree it's suitable for 4.8 as it's refining my
regression fix, but I don't think it really makes any difference.
There is nothing required by C++11 for _Hash_code_base's constructors
because it's an implementation detail, and the only way a user can
tell the difference between a public and protected constructor is
trying to construct _Hash_code_base directly, which is obviously
unsupported.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] fix libstdc++/56278
  - From: François Dumont

References:
- [patch] fix libstdc++/56278
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: [patch] fix libstdc++/56278
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: [patch] fix libstdc++/56278
  - From: Paolo Carlini

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