--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-11 15:52
---
.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Re
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-11 15:51
---
The let's reopen the bug. I keep wondering why there is such resistance
to really small patches like the one needed for this PR...
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493
--- You ar
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-03-11 10:05 ---
Subject: Re: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
"pme at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Especially compared to "bad allocation"?
|
| Sure, we could change that. I don't think "ba
--- 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 documented as throwing, so a programmer reading (
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-10
01:12 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than
> "St9bad_alloc"? Especially compared to "bad allocation"?
Well, "St9bad_alloc" looks like memory corruption, u
--- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-03-09 20:14
---
Subject: Re: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
"pme at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It appears to me that the original reporter wanted what() to return
>> an "intelligible error message"
--- 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
> than "St9bad_alloc" (which does communicate
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:32:32PM +0100, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:14:59AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > > 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;
>
--- Additional Comments From phil at jaj dot com 2004-03-09 19:32 ---
Subject: Re: Bug#236912: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:32:32PM +0100, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:14:59AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > > More to the poin
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:14:59AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > 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
--- Additional Comments From jtv at xs4all dot nl 2004-03-09 18:32 ---
Subject: Re: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:14:59AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > More to the point, it doesn't matter how it's implemented, and the user
> > should not care. It only
[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 11:1
--- 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 consi
--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-09 04:45
---
It appears to me that the original reporter wanted what() to return
an "intelligible error message" a la icc's "bad allocation", rather
than "St9bad_alloc" (which does communicate the same information but
in a
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 236912
Bug#236912: [PR 14493] new: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug closed, send any further explanations to "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
> thanks
Stopping
--- 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
--- Additional Comments From phil at jaj dot com 2004-03-09 04:14 ---
Subject: Re: No std::bad_alloc::what() const
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
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 -, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> For Andrew: the code takes the respect
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-08 23:15
---
For Andrew: the code takes the respective method of the base
class.
Here's a testcase:
---
#include
#include
int main ()
{
try
{
new char[static_cast(-1)/2];
}
cat
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|new: No |No std::bad_alloc::what()
|std::bad_alloc::what() const|const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
20 matches
Mail list logo
