Try to catch up _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS comments and documentation.

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 15 March 2014 14:46, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> I'm resending this because I forgot to dupe to gcc-patches and I'd like one
> thread.
>
> This should be pure commentary and documentation.
>
> I hope I got all these.  I grepped for DR and added
> _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS where it seemed needed.
> I did not add in cases where DR mentions were more commentary.
>
> Then I added the new _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS to the xml intro page.
>
> OK?  Can anyone think of one I left out?

In many of these cases I'd actually prefer to remove the comment
mentioning a DR, rather than add the RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS marker.

For example:

DR 1204: this says we don't need to check for self-move-assignment. It
applies to every move assignment operator in the library. It is not a
defect against C++03, and the resolution is part of the final C++11
standard, so I don't think we should document that we implement it.

DR 1261: another one with "C++11" status, meaning it was included in
the C++11 standard, and this one also isn't relevant to C++03, so of
course we implement it, and we shouldn't even mention it in comments
or docs.

DR 675, DR 776: these aren't relevant to C++03, and are part of C++11
(since the CD1 draft)

So I think adding RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS is the wrong thing to do, I'd
rather not touch them.  Personally I'm in favour of completely remove
any mention of DRs that are fixes to C++0x drafts, not post-C++11
fixes, but that might be more controversial.