From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kenny Simpson <theonetruekenny@yahoo.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libstdc++/3036: pair constructor not updated per DR 265
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:26:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010604062601.30235.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00061.html
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/3036; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Kenny Simpson <theonetruekenny@yahoo.com>
To: Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com>, kenny.simpson@gs.com
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, theonetruekenny@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: libstdc++/3036: pair constructor not updated per DR 265
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:16:30 -0700 (PDT)

 --- Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> wrote:
 ...  Does gcc DTRT as far as 178 goes? ...
 
 Well, with the help of the uber-spiffy online
 compiler, I ran the following test:
 (g++ -O3 -S: observe the output)
 >>>
 template <typename T>
 struct Foo
 {
 Foo() : m() {}
 T m;
 };
 
 // dummy function to prevent things from being
 // optimized-out
 template <typename T>
 void bar(T const&);
 
 int main()
 {
 // test each fundamental type
 bar(Foo<bool>().m);
 bar(Foo<char>().m);
 bar(Foo<unsigned char>().m);
 bar(Foo<signed char>().m);
 bar(Foo<short>().m);
 bar(Foo<unsigned short>().m);
 bar(Foo<int>().m);
 bar(Foo<unsigned int>().m);
 bar(Foo<long>().m);
 bar(Foo<unsigned long>().m);
 bar(Foo<long long>().m);
 bar(Foo<unsigned long long>().m);
 bar(Foo<float>().m);
 bar(Foo<double>().m);
 bar(Foo<long double>().m);
 
 // test pointer types
 bar(Foo<int*>().m);
 bar(Foo<int**>().m);
 
 return 0;
 }
 <<<
 
 In each of the tests, gcc DTRT as far as zero 
 initializing the data member 'm', though the stack
 space was poorly allocated (each temp got it's own
 slot even though the lifetimes are disjoint).
 
 -Kenny
 
 __________________________________________________
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
 a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/