From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5178 invoked by alias); 5 May 2004 03:18:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5171 invoked by uid 48); 5 May 2004 03:18:24 -0000 Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 03:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040505031824.5170.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "mckelvey at maskull dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040504045136.15276.mckelvey@maskull.com> References: <20040504045136.15276.mckelvey@maskull.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/15276] Erroneous Comparisons of Negative Characters X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00370.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mckelvey at maskull dot com 2004-05-05 03:18 ------- >> I suspect that was is really needed is a clarification in the standard: the >> specification for traits::compare, strictly speaking is inconsistent with >> std::strcmp. Well, instead, why not just have C++ work properly, as defined reasonably by the standard in Table 37? std::strcmp is not mentioned, and is therefore irrelevant. compare is inconsistent with lt; do you think that codifying that behavior is a "clarification", or is it more akin to saying that, when convenient, 2 + 2 = 5? Referring to the comments in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-05/msg00009.html there is nothing pedantic about the definition of compare in Table 37, it is clearly and simply stated. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15276