From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30261 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2010 16:35:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 30062 invoked by uid 48); 1 Mar 2010 16:35:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100301163511.30061.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/43183] std::unique_ptr::reset() does not conform to N3035. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com" 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #8 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 16:35 ------- Actually, we could just use pointer() everywhere, which would work today and would be equivalent to using nullptr, assuming the current proposed resolution of 834 or something similar. I would be very surprised if 834 is resolved in a way that allows different semantics for get() == nullptr and get() == pointer() i.e. explicit operator bool() const { return get() == pointer() ? false : true; } // Modifiers. pointer release() { pointer __p = get(); std::get<0>(_M_t) = pointer(); return __p; } -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43183