From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11126 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2005 22:40:32 -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 11113 invoked by uid 48); 7 Sep 2005 22:40:28 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050907224028.11112.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050907170304.23767.afra@cs.stanford.edu> References: <20050907170304.23767.afra@cs.stanford.edu> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/23767] std::vector iterator implementation wrong X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00894.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-09-07 22:40 ------- Yea, but I guess I'll leave this to you guys, that sounds too complicated for me. I'll just stick my head out every once in a while and try to find a loophope in your reasoning and to invent ways to show that a proposed change is, in fact, not ABI compatible :-) Like, I guess, it should be possible to find some way around if the proposed addition of a new parameter was for a regular function (for which one can take the address), rather than a constructor... In the meantime, I go back to solving partial differential equations -- that's simpler. W. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bangerth at dealii dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23767