From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-49737-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12710 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2002 15:17:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12703 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2002 15:17:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO kiruna.synopsys.com) (204.176.20.18)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2002 15:17:49 -0000
Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171])
	by kiruna.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9C5E2F6BE; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atrus.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA04268;
	Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com>
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by atrus.synopsys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id IAA23216;
	Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200204101517.IAA23216@atrus.synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Release
To: gdr@codesourcery.com (Gabriel Dos Reis)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:22:00 -0000
Cc: Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM (Joe Buck),
	mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell), phil@jaj.com (Phil Edwards),
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org (gcc@gcc.gnu.org), bkoz@redhat.com (bkoz@redhat.com)
In-Reply-To: <fl662zvbas.fsf@jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr> from "Gabriel Dos Reis" at Apr 10, 2002 05:11:07 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2

I wrote:
> | The issue is that, for std::rel_ops::operator!=, the types of the two
> | arguments are constrained to be the same, while in stl_iterator.h, we
> | define another operator!= template that allows the two arguments to be
> | different.  The solution is to add another template definition, as
> | follows:

Gaby writes:
> A better solution is to move all those things that have no business in
> std:: into __gnu_cxx::.  If we don't do it now we can't do it in a dot
> release as it would be an ABI change -- and I would hate to maintain
> two different versions.

I don't understand.  Do you mean that you want to move __normal_iterator
to a different namespace?

In any case, a decision to move things around seems to me to be orthogonal
to the operator!= issue.