On 1/23/2015 10:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/01/15 10:53 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Is there a better way to automate a signature compliance? To tweak
>> what they have done?
> Testing member function signatures for compliance is inherently
> flawed, they just shouldn't do it.
>
> I w
On 23/01/15 10:53 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Is there a better way to automate a signature compliance? To tweak
what they have done?
Testing member function signatures for compliance is inherently
flawed, they just shouldn't do it.
I would say they should be testing that the function can be c
On 1/23/2015 9:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/01/15 16:07 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 1/22/2015 3:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
I think this is a glibc issue but since this method is defined in the C++
standards, I thought there
On 22/01/15 16:07 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 1/22/2015 3:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I think this is a glibc issue but since this method is defined in the C++
standards, I thought there were plenty of language lawyers here. :)
s/glibc/libstdc++/ an
On 1/22/2015 3:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> I think this is a glibc issue but since this method is defined in the C++
>> standards, I thought there were plenty of language lawyers here. :)
> s/glibc/libstdc++/ and they have their own ML.
Thank you.
>
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I think this is a glibc issue but since this method is defined in the C++
standards, I thought there were plenty of language lawyers here. :)
s/glibc/libstdc++/ and they have their own ML.
That's deprecated, isn't it?
class strstreambuf : publ
Hi
I think this is a glibc issue but since this method is defined in the C++
standards, I thought there were plenty of language lawyers here. :)
class strstreambuf : public basic_streambuf >
ISSUE > int pcount() const; <= ISSUE
My reading of the C++03 and draft C++14 says that t
