On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 5:03 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 15:57, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 8 Sept 2025 at 12:41, Tomasz Kamiński
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have double checked that impleme
I have double checked that implementation-defined behavior in the [compliance]
(whether the implementation is freestanding) and [stringbuf.const]
(initialization
of sequence pointers) are indeed null, and there are no corresponding entires in
eariel standards.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* d
On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 15:57, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Sept 2025 at 12:41, Tomasz Kamiński wrote:
>> >
>> > I have double checked that implementation-defined behavior in the
>> > [compliance]
>> > (whether the implement
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sept 2025 at 12:41, Tomasz Kamiński wrote:
> >
> > I have double checked that implementation-defined behavior in the
> [compliance]
> > (whether the implementation is freestanding) and [stringbuf.const]
> (initialization
> > of se
On Mon, 8 Sept 2025 at 12:41, Tomasz Kamiński wrote:
>
> I have double checked that implementation-defined behavior in the [compliance]
> (whether the implementation is freestanding) and [stringbuf.const]
> (initialization
> of sequence pointers) are indeed null, and there are no corresponding en
