Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-05 20:24:56

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Andrey Semashev
<andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On November 5, 2012 6:06:42 AM "Stephan T. Lavavej"
> <stl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> [Andrey Semashev]
>> > +1, I had reported a memory leak bug [1] to MS and had been told that
>> > the behavior is correct as it doesn't contradict the Standard. I can't
>> > trust the vendor that treats users this way and declares a memory leak
>> > as a valid behavior. I doubt I will ever bother reporting any other
>> > bugs in MSVC.
>> > [1] The leak appeared in STL streams, if initialized multiple times.
>> > Here's a code snippet:
>> >
>> > I didn't keep a reference to the MS bug tracker and I can't find it now.
>> This was Dev10#831920/Connect#518512. I can't load the Connect link
>> anymore (it is supposed to be
>> and I don't know why it's broken) but I can still see the comments through
>> Team Foundation Server. This behavior was really, truly conformant to the
>> Standard - I was surprised too, so I had to ask P.J. Plauger for an
>> explanation. Here are the comments:
> [snip]
> Thank you Stephan for digging it out. But I still don't agree with your
> conclusions and consider it a serious bug.

If you read the standard one way and a library supplier reads it
another way, you can file a Library Working Group issue. It may be
that the standard needs clarification, or there is a mistake in the
standard, or the standard is correct as written but the LWG feels the
behavior should be changed, or whatever. Resolving this kind of issue
is one of the functions of the standards committee.

If some implementations behave one way, and some behave a different
way, the LWG is likely to be particularly interested in pursuing the



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at