From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4013 invoked by alias); 25 May 2007 17:12:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 3970 invoked by uid 48); 25 May 2007 17:12:05 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070525171205.3969.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/31426] TR1 includes do not work with -std=c++0x 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: 2007-05/txt/msg02255.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-25 17:12 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > I don't think support for C++0x precludes support for TR1. They coexist very > well, especially because TR1 was designed to be compatible with C++0x. For > example, C++0x-conforming implementations of the TR1 facilities also meet the > requirements of TR1. Hi Doug. Upon Benjamin' invitation, I'm working on this issue, with the initial goal of making progress on the C++0x version of type_traits (for example, it will exploit more front-end builtins). Now, however, I do not agree completely with your statement above: certainly, for example, a C++0x-conforming type_traits doesn't meet the requirements of TR1. That, in turn, sheds doubts to the very point that TR1 facilities must be available in C++0x mode: if the user does an using from namespace tr1 to namespace std of a tr1 facility which finds a same-named, but incompatible facility (i.e., implementing different semantics) in namespace std, which one is supposed to "survive"? -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pcarlini at suse dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31426