You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by Stefan Teleman <st...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/31 19:14:42 UTC

stdcxx issue 1058

Hi

In June this year I committed r1353821 to trunk which fixes stdcxx-1058.

I have the patches for 1058 ready to commit to branches (4.2.x and 4.3.x).

OK to go?

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com

Re: stdcxx issue 1058

Posted by Wojciech Meyer <wo...@googlemail.com>.

Hi Stefan,

Stefan Teleman <st...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms> wrote:
>> On 08/31/12 13:14, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In June this year I committed r1353821 to trunk which fixes stdcxx-1058.
>>>
>>> I have the patches for 1058 ready to commit to branches (4.2.x and 4.3.x).
>>>
>>> OK to go?
>>
>> The patch looks ok to me. What seems to be the problem?  +1

I also had a initial look at the patch. Looks OK, I looked at the other
occurrences of "operator delete" to see if we are not doing the same
thing.

--
Wojciech Meyer
http://danmey.org

Re: stdcxx issue 1058

Posted by Stefan Teleman <st...@gmail.com>.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms> wrote:
> On 08/31/12 13:14, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>>
>>
>> In June this year I committed r1353821 to trunk which fixes stdcxx-1058.
>>
>> I have the patches for 1058 ready to commit to branches (4.2.x and 4.3.x).
>>
>> OK to go?
>
> The patch looks ok to me. What seems to be the problem?  +1

Done.

trunk revision 1353821
branches/4.2.x revision 1379523
branches/4.3.x revision 1379520

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com

Re: stdcxx issue 1058

Posted by Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms>.

On 08/31/12 13:14, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>
> In June this year I committed r1353821 to trunk which fixes stdcxx-1058.
>
> I have the patches for 1058 ready to commit to branches (4.2.x and 4.3.x).
>
> OK to go?

The patch looks ok to me. What seems to be the problem?  +1

L