--- 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
