--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-09-18 14:10
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I wonder why it was reverted 9 days later? I couldn't find any discussion on
> gcc-patches nor libstdc++. Perhaps I have missed something.
You did, it caused libstdc++/37919, as yo
--- Comment #5 from joerg dot richter at pdv-fs dot de 2009-09-18 13:47
---
I found Doug Gregors workaround for this pair problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2008-10/msg00080.html
I wonder why it was reverted 9 days later? I couldn't find any discussion on
gcc-patches nor libstdc
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-31 16:14
---
Waiting...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last re
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-31 16:13
---
Let's suspend the issue, but anyway, has to wait for std::pair to stabilize a
bit in the Standard. To be clear, this is the original issue, which has been
filed after our original implementation of a previous D
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-31 15:28
---
These issues are known, and the specifications of std::pair for C++0x are in
flux. The updated specifications will be implemented in due course, when
sufficiently stable vs the removal of Concepts and the paral
--- Comment #1 from richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co dot uk
2009-07-31 15:26 ---
Working draft N2914, 20.3.3 says:
template
struct pair {
[...]
requires CopyConstructible && CopyConstructible pair(const T1 &x,
const T2 &y);
... and this is (modulo concept constraints) presen
