--- Comment #17 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 13:36 ---
Changed for 4.6.0 but I don't think the change is appropriate for the 4.5.0
branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40296
--- Comment #16 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 13:27 ---
Subject: Bug 40296
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jun 6 13:27:23 2010
New Revision: 160340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160340
Log:
2010-06-06 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/40296
--- Comment #15 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-06-02 17:30
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I'm fairly sure that's not valid.
> That relies on an implicit conversion to bool
actually that's nonsense ... that is a contextual conversion!
anyway, I'll look into it properly and
--- Comment #14 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-06-02 17:26
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> AFAIK, the following code should work but does not anymore cause of this bug
> fix:
>
> std::exception_ptr e;
>
> if (e)
> {
> /* ... */
> }
I'm fairly sure that's not valid.
Th
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 17:18
---
Thanks a lot.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40296
--- Comment #12 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-06-02 17:17
---
The NullablePointer concept is new, so yes, it's changed.
I'll deal with this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40296
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 17:03
---
For sure something may have changed in the working paper, we are talking about
1 year since these changes. Jon can you have a look to this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40296
--- Comment #10 from tfautre at pandora dot be 2010-06-02 16:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I'm under the impression we should simply not provide operator __safe_bool()
>
> Agreed, there is no requirement for conversion to bool, explicit or implicit.
> E
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-03 10:40
---
Fixed 4.4.1 and mainline.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-03 10:37 ---
Subject: Bug 40296
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 3 10:37:32 2009
New Revision: 148123
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148123
Log:
2009-06-03 Paolo Carlini
PR libstdc++/40296
*
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-03 10:37 ---
Subject: Bug 40296
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 3 10:37:20 2009
New Revision: 148122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148122
Log:
2009-06-03 Paolo Carlini
PR libstdc++/40296
*
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-03 09:43
---
Ok. Thanks Sebastian and Jon for your feedback. Jon, I'll leave that additional
clean up to you then.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-03 09:30
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'm under the impression we should simply not provide operator __safe_bool()
Agreed, there is no requirement for conversion to bool, explicit or implicit.
Even if it can be done unambi
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-02 19:14
---
As far as the ABI is concerned, isn't a big issue, it suffices to somehow
remove if from the effective exception_ptr.h seen by the user code (via
) while keeping it in the eh_ptr.cc, in order to keep on exporti
--- Comment #3 from sebastian dot redl at getdesigned dot at 2009-06-02
18:45 ---
Curiously enough, N2857 doesn't even require that exception_ptr be usable in
conditions. I must have simply assumed that anything with _ptr in its name must
be a valid condition.
So yeah, if the ABI can t
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-02 18:12
---
Let's add Sebastian in CC, anyway.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-02 17:32
---
I'm under the impression we should simply not provide operator __safe_bool(),
what do you think? (these __safe_bool tricks are also obsoleted by the explicit
conversion operators facility, but that is another m
17 matches
Mail list logo
