--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-02 11:16 ---
Subject: Bug 31370
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 2 11:15:50 2007
New Revision: 123424
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123424
Log:
2007-04-02 Matthew Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paolo
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-04-02 11:19 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-31 17:52 ---
Taking care of it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #4 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-03-27 08:52
---
Poor vectorbool, being disrespected as a second-class container once again...
:P
--
fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-27 09:07 ---
Thanks. On the mainline and 4_2-branch we have new definitions of max_size,
taking into account, as should be, allocator::max_size. Can you please check
the vectorbool bits in this light? (well, about the status of
--- Comment #6 from gcc at severeweblint dot org 2007-03-27 20:27 ---
4.2 doesn't fix any of the problems, but it does make the max_size
issue a bit more confusing.
There is a subtle relationship between vector size and
pointers. Pointers can address only SIZE_MAX memory. But iterators
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-27 21:03 ---
Two quick replies:
4.2 doesn't fix any of the problems, but it does make the max_size
issue a bit more confusing.
Thanks, this is encouraging ;) In any case, nobody said 4.2 fixed any of those
problems. However, for
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-27 07:04 ---
vectorbool should really go away. It is not really a container at all.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
