------- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-04 15:08 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> We really don't set __n in all cases here.
And indeed we do *not* want to set __n in all cases: if for some reason the
extraction fails __n *must* be left untouched. Per the standard, there isn't
any doubt about that and note that before my patch the net behavior was
*exactly* the same, only, for some reason, the warning was not emitted.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|libstdc++ |c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25649
