From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-398567-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21705 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2012 11:02:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 21695 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2012 11:02:02 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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 11:01:48 +0000
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/54249] [C++11] No ::nullptr_t in header <stddef.h>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:02:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail 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-54249-4-l7gX4LQrWQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/msg00839.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D54249

--- Comment #11 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot=
 com> 2012-08-14 11:01:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I must also add that frankly personally I don't consider these issues so
> serious: IMHO a new C++ project should immediately use the c* headers. I =
see
> these issues mostly about legacy code.

Completely agreed and therefore reducing the priority. The main reason for =
this
bugzilla entry was not, because I need above code to be well-formed, but
because there often exists uncertainty in the wild about the interpretation=
 of
the semantics of including the <*.h> headers. The issue came out of a lengt=
hy
discussion that I had about this semantics on the std-discussion group.