From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20110 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2010 09:42:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 20022 invoked by uid 48); 27 Jul 2010 09:42:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100727094205.20020.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/45093] Different definitions of _Rb_tree::{erase,_M_destroy_node} between C++98 and C++0x In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle 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: 2010-07/txt/msg02946.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-27 09:42 ------- Definitely they are not, **no** binary compatibility between C++98 and C++0x. And I can tell you there are **many** more incompatibilities beyond this one which you noticed. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45093