[Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-03-10 01:12 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than
> "St9bad_alloc"? Especially compared to "bad allocation"?
Well, "St9bad_alloc" looks like memory corruption, unless you recognize it's
part of a mangled name. I think it is counter-intuitive. Of course, the best
would be to have a "bad allocation" string stored somewhere.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
Reply to: