public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pme at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:35:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20040311073519.13849.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20040308221042.14493.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> ------- 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 (good) documentation for operator new will see "std::bad_alloc". > Especially compared to "bad allocation"? Sure, we could change that. I don't think "bad allocation" is any better than the demangled type name, but we shouldn't be printing a mangled typeid. Others felt differently. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-11 7:35 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2004-03-08 22:10 [Bug libstdc++/14493] New: new: " debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2004-03-08 22:37 ` [Bug libstdc++/14493] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-08 23:15 ` [Bug libstdc++/14493] " bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-09 4:14 ` pme at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-09 4:14 ` phil at jaj dot com 2004-03-09 4:45 ` zack at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-09 5:19 ` doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de 2004-03-09 18:32 ` jtv at xs4all dot nl 2004-03-09 19:32 ` phil at jaj dot com 2004-03-09 19:48 ` pme at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-09 20:14 ` Zack Weinberg 2004-03-09 20:14 ` zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-03-10 1:12 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-11 7:35 ` pme at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message] 2004-03-11 10:05 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-11 15:51 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-11 15:52 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-27 13:54 ` [Bug libstdc++/14493] std::bad_alloc::what() does not explain what happened pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-05 14:37 ` pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-08-05 15:01 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20040311073519.13849.qmail@sources.redhat.com \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).