------- Additional Comments From doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de 2004-03-09 05:19 ------- Subject: Re: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
[resending for the inclusion to the Debian BTS] Phil Edwards writes: > close 236912 > thanks > > This bug report reinforces my opinion that bug reports consisting of > claims of nonconformance, but not accompanied by a testcase, should be > immediately closed. > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:15:05PM -0000, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote: > > For Andrew: the code takes the respective method of the base > > class. > > More to the point, it doesn't matter how it's implemented, and the user > should not care. It only matters that > > std::bad_alloc foo; > std::cerr << foo.what() << std::endl; > > works, which the submitter didn't apparently try. Looking at the original > Debian bug report, there are no compiler error messages, just a "my code > doesn't do what I want it to do, so it must be your fault"-style complaint. > > > > I believe that libstdc++ is actually conforming, since the method exists > > (even if in the base class) > > Correct. There is no requirement on implementation, only behavior. > > > and it returns an implementation defined > > string (as required by the standard). > > Correct. As described in the documentation. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.