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: [RFC] libstdc++/9626 and std::vector constructors

>>They are not equivalent, but the standard explicitly allows specified
>>default-argument functions to be expanded into overloads.  Wherever
>>practical, our library should do it.  We should do it as much as 
>>possible now, because it risks breaking the ABI to do it later.

For more data, see the part of chapter 17 that talks about this:

17.4.4.4

Anyway. I'm puzzled why this change would change either the ABI (since
vector ctors not instantiated that I can see), or the API, since these
are supposed to be equivalent, and there is no derivation of this class
anyway?

Granted, this stuff should not be changed casually, but I don't think
the situation is dire.

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