http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #9 from Ami Tavory atavory at gmail dot com 2013-03-26 21:40:03
UTC ---
Great, many thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-02
13:30:09 UTC ---
I think that could be useful, although as I don't know how many people still
use the concept checks I'm inclined to say that adding static_assert checks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-01
11:32:32 UTC ---
debug_allocator doesn't meet the relaxed allocator requirements in C++11, let
alone C++03. At the very least it needs operator== and operator!=, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-01
11:33:23 UTC ---
The comment saying This is precisely the allocator defined in the C++
Standard. is pretty misleading ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #6 from Ami Tavory atavory at gmail dot com 2013-02-02 07:24:16
UTC ---
Hi Paolo (again) and Jonathan,
Thanks for offering to add the missing functionality, Jonathan.
I was wondering if there might be an interest to
