On Jun 17, 2013, at 11:04 , Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> *sigh* I can't say this is the wrong thing to do—in fact, it's the kind of >> restriction I usually like—but for the record this breaks OS X's (ancient) >> libstdc++ implementation of <tr1/unordered_map> when compiling under >> -std=c++11. I don't think that's such an important configuration, though. > > That's unfortunate. I assume this is the <tr1/unordered_map> from > g++-4.2? What exotic mechanism is it using to write a null pointer > constant? "return false" ...yeah. Yuck. It's probably a copy-paste bug that just never got caught. libstdc++ version 4.2.1, with whatever tweaks we've been adding over the last n OS X releases. Jordan _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
