--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-05 12:57
---
At this point, I don't think we are going to do change the deprecated auto_ptr,
so closing as WONTFIX.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 19:03 ---
The original testcase is from outside IBM and is probably run by many library
implementors. That doesn't necessarily mean that many implementations pass
this test.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-26 19:08
---
Ok, take your time. For the reasons we already discussed we don't want to rush
on this, in the meanwhile I will also try to collect more information.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38916
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 18:42 ---
Paolo, the person who reported the problem to me is no longer with IBM. I've
asked others in the same group to provide information about the origins of the
test and what implementations are known to pass it, but it mi
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-19 23:12
---
Please, double check that, if possible. Then we'll see...
By the way, we are essentially following Josuttis' implementation, in his book.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38916
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-19 22:45 ---
I assume that the person who sent me the test did so because it passes with
some other implementation, but that doesn't mean it's widespread. It's fine
with me if you say it won't be fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-19 22:35
---
Note that auto_ptr is deprecated for the next Standard, replaced by unique_ptr
(which we deliver in C++0x mode). In fact the specifications of auto_ptr are
known to be irreparably broken. That means we must be
