https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-04 11:59
---
I'm analyzing the remaining xfails. About generation_prohibited, for vector and
deque, I see the tests failing only on the two forms of erase. But in that
case, the Standard (*) says that: "Throws: Nothing unl
--- Comment #22 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-19 10:49
---
Update: per LWG 1170, for basic_string we are back to POD types only, not the
much larger class of literal types,
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 11:03
---
In the meanwhile, I double checked N3000 for basic_string: any literal type
will be allowed, thus if we want to use this type of framework for C++0x we
have first to make sure that the types conform to the req
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 10:46
---
... I meant, still copy constructor, copy assignment, etc, can't throw ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 10:14
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> It does happen when swapping arrays. I believe that array::swap does have a
> strong requirement via 23.2.1 p 10, but have xfailed this for the moment.
In that case we have clearly
--- Comment #18 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-01 03:54 ---
> multiset error
... was bogus. I adjusted the traits to fix this.
> The std::array error seems indeed bogus: if I'm not wrong, it happens when
> swapping arrays, and there are no guarantees that the operation does
--- Comment #17 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-01 03:39 ---
Subject: Bug 21772
Author: bkoz
Date: Fri Jan 1 03:38:58 2010
New Revision: 155545
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155545
Log:
2009-12-31 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/21772 part 3
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-17 09:58
---
The std::array error seems indeed bogus: if I'm not wrong, it happens when
swapping arrays, and there are no guarantees that the operation doesn't throw
for std::array, because it's requires to just swap the
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-17 09:37 ---
Subject: Bug 21772
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Dec 17 09:37:16 2009
New Revision: 155306
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155306
Log:
2009-12-16 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/21772 part 2
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-17 08:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=19333)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19333&action=view)
part 2
diff after merge of part 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #13 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-12-16 11:14
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Some are really puzzling... Hard to believe something is wrong in , for
> example.
I haven't looked into it, but the problem in array could be bug 41449
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-16 10:14
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Results on x86_64/linux or x86_64/darwin10.2
>
> Status:
> FAIL: 23_containers/array/requirements/exception/generation_prohibited.cc
> execution test
> 23_containers/unordered_mul
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 05:17 ---
Subject: Bug 21772
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Dec 16 05:16:46 2009
New Revision: 155283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155283
Log:
2009-12-15 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/21772 part 1
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 03:36 ---
Results on x86_64/linux or x86_64/darwin10.2
Status:
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/requirements/exception/propagation_consistent.cc
execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/array/requirements/exception/generation_prohibite
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 03:34 ---
Tweak summary, mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 03:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=19319)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19319&action=view)
c++0x container requirement testing, eh
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #7 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-27 23:07
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Use this technique. In fact, if you can, use my code.
>
> In fact, Howard already mentioned that, at some point. To be clear, and avoid
> misunderstandings
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-21 18:12 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Use this technique. In fact, if you can, use my code.
In fact, Howard already mentioned that, at some point. To be clear, and avoid
misunderstandings, I want to clearly state that I consider you
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-21 17:16
---
Just "adding a throwing allocator" (especially one that throws
randomly like this one) will not test the library guarantees anywhere
nearly as effectively as the STLPort tests do. The technique is
outlined in htt
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-21 15:58 ---
This is now integrated, but the tests are still ad-hoc. We need a more
consistent application of eh-safety tests.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-21 09:26 ---
Also see libstdc++/32017 for some additional details.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26
20:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26 17:07
---
Created an attachment (id=8972)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8972&action=view)
pb_assoc's throwing allocator
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
24 matches
Mail list logo
