[Bug libstdc++/26733] move semantics vs. debug mode

["bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-17 19:15 -------

On libstdcxx_so_7-branch, there is preliminary support for move semantics.

These patches have some issues:

1) _GLIBCXX_STD_MOVE not listed in any ChangeLog entry...
2) new fails in debug mode.

First pointed out here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2006-03/msg00034.html

>From that:

While testing this, I noticed some issues with the current
_GLIBCXX_STD_MOVE related code in debug mode, regardless of symbol
versioning strategy. (Is this vestigial from when debug mode was not
nested?) For the time being, I am going to punt on this, as I have a
couple other patches to go. I attach the current fails for both, which
are the same. Since this stuff is not on mainline, I am not quite sure
it's been tested in debug mode, and I forgot to make debug mode
baselines before I started with this stuff.  So, I'll return to this
issue shortly.

FAIL: 20_util/utility/pair/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/element_access/char/empty.cc execution test
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/element_access/wchar_t/empty.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/deque/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/deque/resize/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/list/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/map/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/multimap/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/multiset/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/set/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/vector/moveable.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/vector/resize/moveable.cc execution test

It turns out that these fails were pre-existing.


-- 

bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to fail|                            |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26733