From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19281 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 14:09:44 -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 19265 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 14:09:42 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050502140942.19264.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" 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/msg00265.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-02 14:09 ------- Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string "pcarlini at suse dot de" writes: | ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-02 13:31 ------- | Ok, thanks, let's keep open this one, then. | | -- | What |Removed |Added | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Severity|minor |enhancement Isn't this a bug as opposed to "enhancement"? Enhancement suggests that the behaviour is basically correct, but could be improved. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334