[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-08-26 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26 21:11 --- Subject: Bug 20534 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-26 21:10:59 Modified files: libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog libstdc++-v3/confi

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-07-05 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:29 --- Not a regression, completely fixed for 4.1.0. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-05-27 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-27 15:02 --- Subject: Bug 20534 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-27 15:01:46 Modified files: libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog libstdc++-v3/inclu

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-04-01 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-01 23:02 --- ...and also elsewhere (there are more uses besides ). -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|pca

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-04-01 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-01 22:54 --- Humpf! A problem with the trivial fix using abort() is that doesn't emit diagnostic about the failure point. This is relevant for , which uses _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_ASSERT/PEDASSERT directly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bu

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-04-01 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de |dot org | Status|WAITING

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-04-01 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-01 14:26 --- > I think it is not OK to include or . I agree. Actually, probably we have already briefly discussed that (privately) with Benjamin. Is there something wrong with just using if () abort() instead?!? (in case we c

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-03-26 Thread gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-03-26 18:44 --- Subject: Re: Erroneous #include of "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | -- |What|Removed |Added | -

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-03-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-03-18 Thread sacolcor at provide dot net
--- Additional Comments From sacolcor at provide dot net 2005-03-18 20:57 --- I'm working on it, but it may take me a where to track it down to a minimal case. You're correct in that this is legal behavior for a conforming compiler; the actual "core" problem is that because gcc (and mo

[Bug libstdc++/20534] Erroneous #include of

2005-03-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18 16:54 --- Hmm, I know that the only header which is allowed to included twice is cassert/assert.h and change the behavior. Also I know standard headers are allowed to bring in other standard headers. So I don't