From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16039 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2003 15:56:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16007 invoked by uid 71); 5 Mar 2003 15:56:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305155601.16006.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Stefan Rupp Subject: Re: c++/9966: basic_string::operator+ uses recursice template instantiation Reply-To: Stefan Rupp X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9966; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Stefan Rupp To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, struppi@acm.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/9966: basic_string::operator+ uses recursice template instantiation Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:52:59 +0100 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9966 The question may be a different one: Is an implementation forced to use such a huge template-depth for compiling the expression in question, so that a template-depth of more than 17 is neccessary, or is it just the GNU string implementation which makes it neccessary for the compiler to have a huge (default) template-depth of 500 (btw. I did not find the defaukt value in the gcc info pages; the only number noted there is the 17 from the ISO standard)? In the former case the limitation of 17 in the ISO standard is nonsense, in the latter case, the GNU string implementation may be broken. Since I don't know very much about the internals of the GNU string implementation, any input is welcome.