[PATCH][libc++] Remove 'std' qualifier on basic_ostream in 'iomanip' header.

[Larisse Voufo]

Hi Peter --

Is there any particular  reason not to remove this std:: qualifier?
If not, could you please do that for me?
Given my technical difficulties, I do not think that I am qualified to make
this change myself.

I understand that the test case that I provided is non-conforming. But it
still doesn't change the fact that that qualifier is the only occurrence of
that form, and should perhaps not be there.

Thanks,
-- Larisse.



On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Larisse Voufo <lvoufo at google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Larisse Voufo <lvoufo at google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Larisse Voufo <lvoufo at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This qualifier seems to have been added accidentally. (It is the only
>>>> occurrence of basic_ostream within the same file that is qualified).
>>>>
>>>> I have been having a bit of trouble building libc++ successfully; and
>>>> even when I got that done, I have been unable to run the regression tests
>>>> successfully. So, I have not been able to verify that the changes I
>>>> suggested in the attached patch won't break anything.
>>>>
>>>> That said, it'd be great to have someone take a look and apply it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does this extra qualification break any conforming code, or just code
>>> that tries to forward-declare basic_ostream?
>>>
>>
>> I can't say for sure.
>>
>
> Actually scratch this (sort of). I ran into this problem when
> investigating if programs that are currently valid using libc++ and C++11
> would still be valid with C++14.
> I found two main cases of failures, one of which was this. I cannot tell
> if fixing the other case would still break due to this case or not.
>
>
>
>> The test case I provide is what I was able to reduce a much larger build
>> failure down to.
>> I should add that the failure occurs when C++14 is enabled.
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20141003/b2f210f4/attachment.html>