From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22180 invoked by alias); 5 May 2004 18:26:15 -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 22173 invoked by uid 48); 5 May 2004 18:26:15 -0000 Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 18:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040505182615.22171.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" 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/msg00466.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-05-05 18:26 ------- > Yep, you're right. I missed it. What a mess! Indeed, in my opinion too *is* a mess! Interestingly, the 1995 draft even *prescribed* using memcmp and wmemcmp: a nice task for the historian would be reconstructing *why* that section was removed. Personally, barring evidence to the contrary, I'm still convinced that whoever wrote the compare entry in Table 37 *at least* didn't want to rule out using memcmp and wmemcmp (on signed char platforms). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15276