On 03/08/2013 10:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 8 March 2013 20:16, François Dumont wrote:
This is indeed better so I applied the patch as you proposed.
Thanks, can you also make the same changes to the 4.7 branch? If not I
can do so.
Attached patch tested under Linux x86_64 and applied to
On 8 March 2013 20:16, François Dumont wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 11:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> As expected it works for vector/swap.cc too. So we definitely need the bug
>> fix to std::vector::operator= and the testsuite changes to add elements, but
>> I think I'd prefer to just re-swap the c
On 03/07/2013 11:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As expected it works for vector/swap.cc too. So we definitely need the
bug fix to std::vector::operator= and the testsuite changes to add
elements, but I think I'd prefer to just re-swap the containers in the
non-propagating case.
This is indeed
On 7 March 2013 22:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 7 March 2013 21:28, François Dumont wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> While working on unordered containers C++11 allocator integration I used
>> forward_list tests you have done Jon. It reported some problems that should
>> have been seen on forward_list or
On 7 March 2013 21:28, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> While working on unordered containers C++11 allocator integration I used
> forward_list tests you have done Jon. It reported some problems that should
> have been seen on forward_list or vector allocator tests too if those tests
> were inde
Hi
While working on unordered containers C++11 allocator integration I
used forward_list tests you have done Jon. It reported some problems
that should have been seen on forward_list or vector allocator tests too
if those tests were indeed manipulating memory. But there weren't
because no
