From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23348 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 12:02:11 -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 23327 invoked by uid 48); 2 May 2005 12:02:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050502120207.23326.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050502114518.21334.jkanze@cheuvreux.com> References: <20050502114518.21334.jkanze@cheuvreux.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/21334] Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-02 12:02 ------- Two quick comments: 1- I'd like to keep open either 10350 or this one, I don't see much value in keeping open both. Ok? 2- I'm not aware of any real cure for this kind of problems within a RC implementation. Are you? For what is worth, in the v7-branch there is already a basic_string framework for flexible memory management policies and I have already prototyped an additional policy not using RC at all. I'm planning to add it the repository very soon. This is stuff that breaks the 3.4/4.0 ABI of course, but if people want it we can envisage providing it as an extension in future 4.0.x releases. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334