From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-398540-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24259 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2012 06:27:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 24243 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2012 06:27:27 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:27:08 +0000
From: "zeratul976 at hotmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/54248] New: Comment in standard library header talks about boost
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:27:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00812.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54248

             Bug #: 54248
           Summary: Comment in standard library header talks about boost
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: zeratul976@hotmail.com


This is rather trivial thing, but bits/concept_check.h contains the following
comment near the bottom:


// Note that the obvious and elegant approach of
//
//#define glibcxx_function_requires(C) boost::function_requires< boost::C >()
//
// won't work due to concept templates with more than one parameter, e.g.,
// BinaryPredicateConcept.  The preprocessor tries to split things up on
// the commas in the template argument list.  We can't use an inner pair of
// parenthesis to hide the commas, because "boost::(Temp<Foo,Bar>)" isn't
// a valid instantiation pattern.  Thus, we steal a feature from C99.


Should this comment really be talking about boost?