This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH, c++0x] Testcases for unique_ptr

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Chris Fairles <chris dot fairles at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:32:55 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH, c++0x] Testcases for unique_ptr
Accept-language: en-US
References: <fac6bb500806250459l3013dce7ref1a15fb44e41823@mail.gmail.com> <3163044.1214396014071.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt303.oracle.com> <5431919.1214413112066.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt303.oracle.com> <fac6bb500806251302w65cca0a0hc7df85eb78e40947@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Chris,

and thanks for investigating this issue well beyond the unique_ptr work proper.

> Am I correct in saying that the warning should not be emitted
> in our > case therefore theres a bug in whatever code is responsible
> for determining if negative indexes are allowed or not?
> 
> Whats the course of action here?

I say you are right and a PR should be filed mentioning also, as a related, but indeed not identical issue (it's already fixed in mainline), middle-end/35593. Can you do that? If you can please add me and Richard Gunther in CC, otherwise, please let me know ASAP and I will.

Many thanks again,
Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH, c++0x] Testcases for unique_ptr
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- [PATCH, c++0x] Testcases for unique_ptr
  - From: Chris Fairles
- Re: [PATCH, c++0x] Testcases for unique_ptr
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [PATCH, c++0x] Testcases for unique_ptr
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [PATCH, c++0x] Testcases for unique_ptr
  - From: Chris Fairles

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