[Bug c++/54043] [C++11] cout << nullptr does not work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043 --- Comment #11 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-23 11:00:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > You can submit an issue, see > http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#submit_issue I sent an e-mail to Alisdair Meredith per the instructions on that page.
[Bug c++/54043] [C++11] cout << nullptr does not work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043 --- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler 2012-07-20 19:02:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > Jonathan, given the state of 1423, should I open a new reminder bugzilla > > > entry > > > to take care of this? AFAIK we have done so for other "ready" issues in > > > the > > > past. > > > > I still think that adding this entry will be good to have. Agreed? > > Sure, no harm in adding it - if Jason doesn't want to implement it yet then he > won't :) > > Thanks for pointing out the issue. I just found out that you already added it a while ago via bug 52174. I added some further comments in regard to the ready state and suggested some test cases.
[Bug c++/54043] [C++11] cout << nullptr does not work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-20 14:14:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > > Jonathan, given the state of 1423, should I open a new reminder bugzilla > > entry > > to take care of this? AFAIK we have done so for other "ready" issues in the > > past. > > I still think that adding this entry will be good to have. Agreed? Sure, no harm in adding it - if Jason doesn't want to implement it yet then he won't :) Thanks for pointing out the issue.
[Bug c++/54043] [C++11] cout << nullptr does not work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler 2012-07-20 14:04:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > In this context it is presumably interesting to mention a recently intended > core language change: > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1423 > > I believe this change will have effects on this issue: Once accepted, the > nullptr_t -> bool conversion will no longer be considered (I have not yet > checked whether there would still exist other conversion ambiguities). I just recognize that this won't change the ambiguity, because we have still enough left ;-) > Jonathan, given the state of 1423, should I open a new reminder bugzilla entry > to take care of this? AFAIK we have done so for other "ready" issues in the > past. I still think that adding this entry will be good to have. Agreed?
[Bug c++/54043] [C++11] cout << nullptr does not work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at ||googlemail dot com --- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler 2012-07-20 13:59:41 UTC --- In this context it is presumably interesting to mention a recently intended core language change: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1423 I believe this change will have effects on this issue: Once accepted, the nullptr_t -> bool conversion will no longer be considered (I have not yet checked whether there would still exist other conversion ambiguities). Jonathan, given the state of 1423, should I open a new reminder bugzilla entry to take care of this? AFAIK we have done so for other "ready" issues in the past.
[Bug c++/54043] [C++11] cout << nullptr does not work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2012-07-20 Summary|[C++0x] cout << nullptr |[C++11] cout << nullptr |does not work |does not work Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-20 12:46:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Thanks. Is there any publicly-accessible summary of the previous discussion, No, although there wasn't much discussion really. Someone asked if it's supposed to work or not, the conclusion was it's not meant to. It was pointed out that it can happen easily with e.g. BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( ptr, nullptr ); > so that I can read it and not retread old ground? Also, if the WG agrees to > make the change in the next version, would gcc be willing to implement it > right > away rather than waiting for the next version of the standard to actually be > released? (I'm assuming yes, since there was a bunch of C++0x stuff > implemented before it was actually released.) Yes, I imagine so. It could change the meaning of valid code but probably wouldn't cause problems. I suppose we could do it now and put it in a separate header such as so it isn't an overload candidate unless that's included. That obviously wouldn't be portable.
