This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: libstdc++/7186: DR179 for std::deque::iterator and const_iterator

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
To: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org, pcarlini at unitus dot it, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 18:28:58 +0200
Subject: Re: libstdc++/7186: DR179 for std::deque::iterator and const_iterator
References: <20020703162257.28929.qmail@sources.redhat.com>

bkoz@gcc.gnu.org wrote:

   Is there a survey of existing practice for this issue?

Agreed, I'm going to take care of this, surveying the existing practice of 3 or 4 implementations I have access too.

Can all but the reverse_iterator bits go in now, since that will have ABI-impacting effects?

Well, as I mentioned in the PR, decoupling the reverse_iterator case from the "normal" iterator case seems difficult for the special std::deque::iterator and const_iterator case (it isn't for __normal_iterator, used by the other standard containers). Again, I will do my best in the next weeks.

Paolo.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7186

Follow-Ups:
- Re: libstdc++/7186: DR179 for std::deque::iterator and const_iterator
  - From: B. Kosnik

References:
- Re: libstdc++/7186: DR179 for std::deque::iterator and const_iterator
  - From: bkoz

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