[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-29 16:53:28 UTC --- Arguably no more confusing than seeing it in the CC list on some bugs and not others
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-29 16:51:28 UTC --- Thanks for the explanation. I don't think you need to do anything since the mails still get through - but seeing the address removed from the CC list is certainly confusing.
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-09-29 16:46:08 UTC --- Our code doesn't CC gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org by default. This is useless as it already gets bugmails for all bugs in the gcc product thanks to our Bugzilla extension (was so since we upgraded from 2.20 to 3.6.2). If there are some bugs with gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org in the CC list, then this comes from old hacks GCC Bugzilla 2.20 had before I did the upgrade. You don't have to worry about this as it has no effect on getting bugmails. Once we upgrade to Bugzilla 4.2 (this won't happen before several months as we didn't release 4.2rc1 yet), powerless users won't be allowed to unCC someone else. We enforced this in 4.2 for the exact same reason as described here, i.e. a user having fun removing another user account from the CC list. If this is critical for overseers, I can backport and apply the patch to GCC Bugzilla.
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-29 15:49:47 UTC --- (and as you can see, this PR now is missing the CC, and all the messages we are exchanging are sent to the gcc-bugs mailing list, no problem at all)
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-29 15:48:40 UTC --- Something is strange ... messages sent to bugs from which gcc-bugs was removed do in fact still go to gcc-bugs anyway. So maybe there is no real problem with messages not going to gcc-bugs - but an apparent removal of gcc-bugs should not appear in messages reporting a change that presumably didn't intend to remove gcc-bugs, that's noise.
Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
Something is strange ... messages sent to bugs from which gcc-bugs was removed do in fact still go to gcc-bugs anyway. So maybe there is no real problem with messages not going to gcc-bugs - but an apparent removal of gcc-bugs should not appear in messages reporting a change that presumably didn't intend to remove gcc-bugs, that's noise. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-29 15:45:44 UTC --- Are you aware that *all* the new bugs do *not* have it? Please explain that, if we want me to restore those CC (which I assumed were just bogus/legacy stuff)
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-29 15:40:19 UTC --- On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 > > Paolo Carlini changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot >||com Paolo, you appear to have removed gcc-bugs from the CC list of several bugs. I don't know how you did it - our Bugzilla is supposed to prevent accidental removal of gcc-bugs, all bugs in the gcc product should always have gcc-bugs in their CC lists - but please add it back to the bugs from which you removed it.
Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 > > Paolo Carlini changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot >||com Paolo, you appear to have removed gcc-bugs from the CC list of several bugs. I don't know how you did it - our Bugzilla is supposed to prevent accidental removal of gcc-bugs, all bugs in the gcc product should always have gcc-bugs in their CC lists - but please add it back to the bugs from which you removed it. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot ||com --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 23:53:28 UTC --- Jason, any tip about why DECL_FRIEND_PSEUDO_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION is indeed true for B().fn()?! I don't see any friend around!
[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition
--- Comment #1 from gcc at daryl dot haresign dot com 2009-12-29 14:55 --- I've just looked at this again. It seems the is not being printed in the second case due to the line: 1463 && !DECL_FRIEND_PSEUDO_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION(t) in gcc/cp/error.c, in the function dump_function_name. If I comment out that line, I get the . I doubt the fix is as simple as that, however. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813
