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: Many check_debug regressions

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:31:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Many check_debug regressions
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <52D27B56 dot 5030106 at oracle dot com> <CACWmBHcEYRO5cA3wQUcOddikKxcAUq+0qOyCnjT=OhUY9rBU8g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdSA0HWvkO=AM0DgkCMzU4vwp-_J-NKpWoAFYfNTqsmp3Q at mail dot gmail dot com>

On 01/13/2014 10:53 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

On 13 January 2014 09:11, François Dumont wrote:

I think that most of them are coming from this patch of never have been
validated/applied.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-12/msg00044.html

And never posted to gcc-patches ;-)

The patch is OK, we do need those allocator-extended constructors, so
please post it to the lists (both of them!) again and commit, thanks.

Great. Note however, that the above backward logic means that, at somepoint, somebody, committed a debug-mode change which caused manyregressions. And we went ahead, reported no regression in debug-mode foradditional unrelated changes... Worrisome...


Does the patch also fix the check-debug failures in testsuite/experimental ?

Thanks,
Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Many check_debug regressions
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: Many check_debug regressions
  - From: François Dumont

References:
- Many check_debug regressions
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Many check_debug regressions
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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