http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-07-20
Summary|[C++0x] cout << nullptr |[C++11] cout << nullptr
|does not work |does not work
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-20
12:46:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks. Is there any publicly-accessible summary of the previous discussion,
No, although there wasn't much discussion really. Someone asked if it's
supposed to work or not, the conclusion was it's not meant to. It was pointed
out that it can happen easily with e.g.
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( ptr, nullptr );
> so that I can read it and not retread old ground? Also, if the WG agrees to
> make the change in the next version, would gcc be willing to implement it
> right
> away rather than waiting for the next version of the standard to actually be
> released? (I'm assuming yes, since there was a bunch of C++0x stuff
> implemented before it was actually released.)
Yes, I imagine so. It could change the meaning of valid code but probably
wouldn't cause problems. I suppose we could do it now and put it in a separate
header such as <ext/nullptr_io.h> so it isn't an overload candidate unless
that's included. That obviously wouldn't be portable.
