--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-01 08:49 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-31 23:38 ---
Subject: Bug 31426
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 31 23:37:56 2007
New Revision: 125244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125244
Log:
2007-05-31 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-25 17:12 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I don't think support for C++0x precludes support for TR1. They coexist very
well, especially because TR1 was designed to be compatible with C++0x. For
example, C++0x-conforming implementations
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-25 17:39 ---
Nevermind: that scenerio is illegal anyway, of course. I think I will just try
to implement what you suggested on libstdc++ some time ago...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-06 09:33 ---
Hey Doug.
Yes, indeed this is the case: I pointed it out a couple of times already.
I'll try to implement this other behavior, but without injecting namespace
std::tr1 as part of C++0x items.
-benjamin
--
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-02 16:18 ---
isn't that a feature?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31426
--- Comment #2 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-02 16:32 ---
I don't think it is a feature.
In C++0x mode, if one includes tuple, one should get std::tuple. That's what
the C++0x working paper says.
In any mode, if one includes tr1/tuple, one should get std::tr1::tuple.
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-02 17:26 ---
Ah, I see.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
