--- Additional Comments From pme at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-11 07:35
---
> Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than
> "St9bad_alloc"?
The former is at least readable C++. More importantly, it's what 'new'
is docume
--- Additional Comments From pme at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-09 19:48
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> It appears to me that the original reporter wanted what() to return
> an "intelligible error message" a la icc's "bad allocation", rather
>
--- Additional Comments From pme at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-09 04:14
---
Works just fine. Submitter is mistaken.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11366
--- Additional Comments From pme at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-24 19:01
---
> Can someone give me an idea of what the proper followup to this message
> might b
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11366
pme at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
5 matches
Mail list logo
