On 14/12/2016 12:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/12/16 11:27 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/12/16 22:51 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
I've confirmed that the change fixes these bad test results for C++03
testing:
UNRESOLVED: 12
FAIL: 32
Thanks for confirming, now committed.
Fr
On 14/12/16 11:27 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/12/16 22:51 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I have been reported privately by Christophe in copy a regression
resulting from my recent changes to _Rb_tree. I removed a
constructor still necessary in C++03 mode or before. Tests would
ha
On 14/12/16 11:27 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/12/16 22:51 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I have been reported privately by Christophe in copy a regression
resulting from my recent changes to _Rb_tree. I removed a
constructor still necessary in C++03 mode or before. Tests would
ha
On 13/12/16 22:51 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I have been reported privately by Christophe in copy a regression
resulting from my recent changes to _Rb_tree. I removed a constructor
still necessary in C++03 mode or before. Tests would have shown it if
I had run them in C++03.
For re
Hi
I have been reported privately by Christophe in copy a regression
resulting from my recent changes to _Rb_tree. I removed a constructor
still necessary in C++03 mode or before. Tests would have shown it if I
had run them in C++03.
* include/bits/stl_tree.h
(_Rb_tree_impl(const
