Removal of pre-ISO C++ items from include/backwards

Fri Oct 26 03:23:00 GMT 2007

On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 20:34 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, skaller wrote:
> | I should point out retaining 'old' features can create a
> | significant maintenance burden for gcc developers,
> In this specific case, what are they?

You're in a better position than me to determine that.
I don't know: it's a generalisation from experience
with half a dozen compiler development projects I track.

I could guess at things that might cause problems, for
example changes in allocation strategy, thread safety,
default allocators, etc which would be applied to all
the standard containers, would also require work for
the hash-ext containers, and, it may even create a conflict
between remaining compatible with legacy code and simultaneously
using conflicting new allocator technology.

This may arise because, lacking standardisation, it is hard to
say 'you shouldn't have been doing that it's undefined in the
Standard' which you might say for the standard containers.

Are the tr1 hash containers exactly the old ext containers?
No? Then you just identified one such issue.

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++:

More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list