[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-11 01:26 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) Looking at the testresults, it appears to have been introduced between 128587 and 128594 in September. The only patch of significance in this period is Jason's 128590. It's not obvious to me why this would have affected the behavior of -pedantic. I should get my eyes checked ;( The test has been failing since introduction in r128500. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 18:57 --- So the problem is new, right? Has it to do with the recent fixes for the deadlock bug? -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dougkwan at google dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 19:32 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) --- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 18:57 --- So the problem is new, right? Has it to do with the recent fixes for the deadlock bug? Looking at the testresults, it appears to have been introduced between 128587 and 128594 in September. The only patch of significance in this period is Jason's 128590. It's not obvious to me why this would have affected the behavior of -pedantic. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #3 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-10-08 19:50 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) That's strange. I am looking at it. I ran the libstdc++ testsuite before and did not see this problem. -Doug 8 Oct 2007 19:32:42 -, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca [EMAIL PROTECTED]: --- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 19:32 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) --- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 18:57 --- So the problem is new, right? Has it to do with the recent fixes for the deadlock bug? Looking at the testresults, it appears to have been introduced between 128587 and 128594 in September. The only patch of significance in this period is Jason's 128590. It's not obvious to me why this would have affected the behavior of -pedantic. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 20:10 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) That's strange. I am looking at it. I ran the libstdc++ testsuite before and did not see this problem. This is specific to LP64 hpux. Did you test with 11.21 or 11.31? Possibly, sys/pthread.h has been updated. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #5 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-10-08 22:35 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) I only tested in Linux. -Doug 8 Oct 2007 20:10:51 -, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca [EMAIL PROTECTED]: --- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 20:10 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) That's strange. I am looking at it. I ran the libstdc++ testsuite before and did not see this problem. This is specific to LP64 hpux. Did you test with 11.21 or 11.31? Possibly, sys/pthread.h has been updated. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-08 23:01 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors) I only tested in Linux. This was not introduced by your change. The problem is the use of an C99 extension (long long constant) in a system header. I believe that this wouldn't normally cause a warning, but gthr-posix.h contains defines derived from defines in pthread.h (e.g., PTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT). Probably, this can be fixed by fixing the HP header. On the other hand, maybe the warning/error shouldn't happen. Possibly, the defines in gthr-posix.h that reference pthread macros need __extension__ before the right-hand side. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
[Bug libstdc++/33700] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/all_pedantic_errors.cc (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-08 23:35 --- Let's remove Doug from CC, then, and thank him for his prompt feedback... -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC|dougkwan at google dot com | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33700
