ry's test suite, and they
didn't cause the packaged build for Ubuntu to fail. I saw there were
many test failures in the Ubuntu packaged version, so I didn't really
pick through them.
> Here's what I'm checking in
>
> 2012-01-03 Chase Douglas
> Jon
On 01/03/2012 12:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 January 2012 19:17, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>
>> PR c++/50500
>> * include/bits/shared_ptr.h: Add lazy copy ops even if there's a move
>
> That is the ChangeLog for the front-end part of 50500, isn't it?
>
When compiling with a compiler that is conformant to the c++11 spec for PR
c++/50500, std::shared_ptr must have an explicitly defined copy constructor.
Backported from revisions 180159 and 173882. The rest of the revisions include
new functionality, so only this part should be applied to 4.6.
Thi
On 01/03/2012 10:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 January 2012 18:07, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> I rebuilt the library with this
>> change to gcc and ran the test suite. All passed normally.
>
> That's what I needed to know, your original mail didn't say anything
On 01/03/2012 09:01 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 January 2012 16:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 3 January 2012 16:23, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> When compiling with a compiler that is conformant to the c++11 spec for PR
>>> c++/50500, std::shared_ptr must have
Fixing a typo when Cc'ing Matthias Klose.
---
When compiling with a compiler that is conformant to the c++11 spec for PR
c++/50500, std::shared_ptr must have an explicitly defined copy constructor.
Backported from revision 180159. The rest of the revision includes new
functionality, so only this
When compiling with a compiler that is conformant to the c++11 spec for PR
c++/50500, std::shared_ptr must have an explicitly defined copy constructor.
Backported from revision 180159. The rest of the revision includes new
functionality, so only this part should be applied to 4.6. This has been
te
On 12/24/2011 10:08 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't really follow gcc much, so I hope I'm asking this in the right
> place :).
>
> I would like to ask that the fix in revision 180159 be backported to the
> gcc 4.6 branch. It's a trivial change, b
Hi,
I don't really follow gcc much, so I hope I'm asking this in the right
place :).
I would like to ask that the fix in revision 180159 be backported to the
gcc 4.6 branch. It's a trivial change, but without it clang cannot
compile anything using the default std::shared_ptr constructor. That's
m
