http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44647
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44647
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44647
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-05 09:42:03 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 5 09:41:57 2010
New Revision: 164973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164973
Log:
2010-10-05 Sebastian Huber
Jo
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-23 15:24 ---
leave it to me (apart from not including the re-generated autoconf file, your
patch doesn't update the Copyright dates)
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from sebastian dot huber at embedded-brains dot de
2010-06-23 15:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=20987)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20987&action=view)
Moves std::bad_alloc implementation into new file bad_alloc.cc
I don't know how to regenerate t
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-23 15:14 ---
OK, now I understand what you're suggesting.
Confirmed as a valid enhancement request.
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from sebastian dot huber at embedded-brains dot de
2010-06-23 15:02 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > The std::bad_alloc definitions should be placed into a
> > separate file.
>
> IIUC that wouldn't work, is required to declare bad_alloc, so if
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-23 14:57 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The std::bad_alloc definitions should be placed into a
> separate file.
IIUC that wouldn't work, is required to declare bad_alloc, so if
bad_alloc was moved to a separate file, the parts of
