http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43241
--- Comment #12 from Scott A. Colcord 2011-09-14
15:36:46 UTC ---
As long as std::regex is still on the todo list, that resolves my concern. And
I would love to be able to help; if you can give me a couple of extra hours
in my day, I'll happily
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43241
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-14
15:26:23 UTC ---
And for std::regex, what would be more useful than just "it's not fully
implemented yet" would be listing what's missing, e.g. I disabled support for
anchors because it was buggy, s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43241
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-14
15:13:57 UTC ---
It's a known issue that std::regex is incomplete, as documented in the
libstdc++ manual. If it makes you feel better file a bug, but it isn't going
to make any difference to anythi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43241
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-14
15:09:45 UTC ---
tr1::regex is definitely a wontfix. std::regex is a completely different
matter, of course should be implemented, maybe you can help?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43241
Scott A. Colcord changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sacolcor at provide dot net
--- Commen
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-03 20:13 ---
I should mention why I filed this bug, someone asked (on IRC) how to fix up a
link error when using std::tr1::regex. Of course I looked inside bugzilla
first and did not see any so I did not look into further than t
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-03 20:10
---
Bah, frankly WONTFIX doesn't seem correct either: we are not taking about a
*bug* which we are not going to fix. We are talking about a largely
*unimplemented* part of the future C++1x standard. Now, in my opin
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-03-03 19:31 ---
...is WONTFIX.
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-03-03 19:30 ---
I think INVALID is the wrong resolution of this PR. This clearly is a bug
(if we offer a class we should make sure it can be used), but we may
choose to say that we won't work on this bug. The right resolution therefore..
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-03 01:16
---
Yeah, this is not matter for a PR, a *lot* of work is needed for std::regex (at
this point nobody really cares about tr1::regex).
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|std::tr1::regex does not|std::tr1:
11 matches
Mail list logo
