From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17891 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2010 11:14:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 17853 invoked by uid 48); 27 Jul 2010 11:14:15 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100727111415.17852.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/msg02954.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-27 11:14 ------- Well, this specific snippet will work at some point, because we want to use namespace association for the C++0x containers. Of course no binary compatibility in general, C++0x and C++98 code will not be allowed in general to interoperate, for *many* reasons (just as an example std::list will be changed to have a constant time size in C++0x) -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45093