From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30010 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2007 20:03:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 29977 invoked by uid 48); 27 Mar 2007 20:03:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070327200305.29976.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/31370] resizing bugs in std::vector In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg02612.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-27 21:03 ------- Two quick replies: > 4.2 doesn't fix any of the problems, but it does make the max_size > issue a bit more confusing. Thanks, this is encouraging ;) In any case, nobody said 4.2 fixed any of those problems. However, for sure, any proposed patch / fix targets first mainline, not the release branches. > Note that it probably isn't correct to assume that difference_type is > a ssize_t, and therefore has maximum SSIZE_MAX, but I don't see what > the correct way to ask what the maximum value representable by > difference_type is. Why not numeric_limits::max() ? > I'm fine with filling out copyright assignment paperwork, but I didn't see the > form at the link you gave me. Again, nobody said the form was there. I pointed you at that general information page because I was under the - probably not too far from the truth - impression that you was not familiar with our general directions for contributors. If you need the forms, please send a message to assignments@. In any case, that kind of paperwork is not needed for the present work, but, if possible, please let's figure out a way to deal with the issues in a "C++" (C++03, actually) way, which means using numeric_limits, not assuming specific types for difference_type, size_type and so on, not using types likes ssize_t which do not exist in the current C++ standard (*). Finally, I repeat myself, any patch shall target mainline first. I look forward to see your improved proposal. (*) ssize_t is mentioned only once, in note 266. If we really need a type equivalent for all practical matters to such Posix type, we have to find a way to construct one on the fly, for example by implementing an __add_signed (similar to the currently available __add_unsigned, in ext/type_traits.h) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31370