Your message dated Wed, 16 May 2012 22:57:26 +0100
with message-id
<capq4b8nhyb5mgtw+ipai+hoamf8nsuuq9se1heh0cdpyn5t...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: [PR libstdc++/14990] [C++ standard issue] multiset forward
iterator is const
has caused the Debian Bug report #36600,
regarding [PR libstdc++/14990] [C++ standard issue] multiset forward iterator
is const
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
36600: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=36600
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libstdc++2.9-dev
Version: 2.91.60-5
The Dec 2, 1996 draft of the "Working Paper for Draft Proposed
International Standard for Information Systems Programming Language
C++" says that the multiset must support forward iterators. A forward
iterator's operator* must return a reference (T&). The implementation
in libstdc++2.9-dev multiset.h returns a const reference (const T&).
This is not correct.
I believe this problem also exists in version 2.91.66-1 as the
relevant source code hasn't changed. However, I haven't compiled
anything with the newer version.
If that's not clear, let me know. OS details attached.
David Marwood
[patricia:~]uname -a
Linux patricia 2.0.34 #52 Wed Sep 23 16:47:48 PDT 1998 i586 unknown
[patricia:~]g++ -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.60/specs
gcc version egcs-2.91.60 Debian 2.1 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tags 36600 + wontfix
stop
Hello,
Thanks for the detailed bug reports and your interest in improving
Debian. I'm just doing some cleanup, I am not involved with the GCC package.
The bug was rejected upstream, who marked it as "invalid" a few years
ago, and gave reasons for it. So I guess that the best course of
action is to close this bug report now.
Please reopen if you think that the resolution is not appropriate.
Regards.
--- End Message ---
