public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
Subject: Re: libstdc++/10505
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:26:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030429142600.8287.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)

The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/10505; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libstdc++/10505
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:25:19 -0500 (CDT)

 [I guess we should continue in English and add this to the audit trail.]
 
 > Hm, ja. Scheint so. Allerdings lassen sich IMHO die praeprozessierten
 > Sourcen auf folgendes Problem reduzieren, was IMHO legalerweise abgelehnt
 > wird:
 > 
 > template <class A>
 > class Bar {
 > 	A barelem;
 > };
 > 
 > class Foo {
 > 	Bar<Foo> fooelem;
 > };
 
 Correct, this code is illegal.
 
 
 > Bleibt die Frage, ob das urspruengliche Konstrukt irgendwie legal ist:
 > 
 > class   Foo
 > {
 > public:
 > 	int             x;
 > 	std::list<Foo>  children;
 > };
 
 I think this should be legal code. It would only be illegal if 
 std::list<T> would have member variable of type _T_, rather than _T*_. I 
 am not aware of any wording in the standard, but I would guess that the 
 intent certainly is _not_ to have such members, but store the data in a 
 linked list and have pointers to it.
 
 
 > Auch hier wird std::list<> mit Foo instanziiert. Bei der normalen
 > Implementierung wird dabei offenbar nur ein Zeiger auf Foo irgendwo
 > angelegt, mit --enable-concept-checks dagegen ein echtes Element
 > vom Typ Foo, was nicht gehen kann. Wenn std::list in der Beziehung
 > irgendwelche Zugestaendnisse macht, dann koennte es sein, dass der
 > concept checks code buggy ist, ansonsten wuerde ich das bei naeherer
 > Betrachtung als user error ablehnen. Was meinst Du?
 
 Given the above, I would claim that the concepts check is in error. It 
 checks a requirement at the time of instantiation of the class that is 
 only needed at the time where actual member functions are instantiated. I 
 see no reason why the given code should be illegal.
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 


             reply	other threads:[~2003-04-29 14:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-04-29 14:26 Wolfgang Bangerth [this message]
2003-04-29 17:06 libstdc++/10505 Christian Ehrhardt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030429142600.8287.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=bangerth@ices.utexas.edu \
    --cc=gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=nobody@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).