This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Clarification about the cons_virtual_derivation.cc tests
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:12:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: Clarification about the cons_virtual_derivation.cc tests
- References: <20197236.1217621961251.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt304.oracle.com>
> Therefore, I'm a little puzzled. I'm not sure why we want to have
> fails here (then xfailed); I'm not sure whether we believe we can
> change something in our specific implementation in order to have
> passes, while remaining conforming. Or whether we want to pursue this
> issue as DR?!? Can you clarify?
I am using these as markers for some ongoing error-handling work,
and understand that the current state may be confusing.
It is unlikely that we could change our implementation.
-benjamin