From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-24602-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20439 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2002 05:26:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20423 invoked by uid 71); 16 Nov 2002 05:26:03 -0000
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 05:11:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20021116052603.20421.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: paolo@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Pete Ratzlaff <rpete@legs.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: libstdc++/5133: Problems with toupper
Reply-To: Pete Ratzlaff <rpete@legs.harvard.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00816.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/5133; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Pete Ratzlaff <rpete@legs.harvard.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: paolo@gcc.gnu.org, schmid@snake.iap.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
Subject: Re: libstdc++/5133: Problems with toupper
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:17:10 -0500

 I realize this PR is closed, but don't agree with the conclusion that
 mixing linkages in this case is ill-formed.  There's is nothing to
 preclude the template argument from being a function with C
 linkage. Here is what the standard has to say:
 
 template<class InputIterator, class OutputIterator,
          class UnaryOperation>
   OutputIterator
     transform(InputIterator first, InputIterator last,
               OutputIterator result, UnaryOperation op);
 
   1- Effects: Assigns through every iterator i in the range [result,
      result + (last1 - first1)) a new corresponding value equal to
      op(*(first1 + (i - result))
 
 In other words, anything that can have an () appended and follows the
 rules for template parameters is fair game for the 3rd template
 argument in this case.
 
 All I can guess is that Martin was thinking of the std::ptr_fun and
 std::pointer_to_unary_function templates, whose argument (and ctor)
 are explicitly pointers to function (with C++ linkage).
 
 I cannot see anything that keeps one from using the toupper/tolower
 from <cctype> with transform, and the fact that gcc won't allow it
 should be considered a bug.
 
 Although it certainly doesn't prove my point, I would just note that
 Comeau's compiler seems to concur.
 
 Cheers,
 -Pete