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]

[Bug libstdc++/25304] std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature



------- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2005-12-08 16:11 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> However, I'm looking at the pratical effect.  If libstdc++ changes the
> return types (correcting the bug) then it will be an ABI breakage.
> If LWG considers and agrees on the enhancement, libstdc++ will have to
> change again the return types.  At the end of the day we would have
> two ABI breakages with zero net benefit for existing libstdc++ users.

I share your concerns. Want to add a couple of thoughts:
1- When we broke the ABI to fix 16505, I think we did that with the spirit that
it was a, so to speak, "weak" breakage, because could possibly byte only people
using the return value, something not standard conforming. Indeed, we received
zero complaints, as I already remarked.
2- As I see the issue, it depends a lot on the actual timeframe of the possible
enhancement to the standard. I mean, if we are thinking about C++0x, seems
rather far in time. I think most of our users would not perceive our practice
as randomly going back and forward on something.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25304


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