Hello Everyone,
In the criteria for primary plattforms I've read that primary plattforms
have to be popular systems. Reading this as widely used I think that
this will be a requirement which mainframes are unlikely to meet in the
near future, so I propose to make s390 and s390x secondary
On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Jack Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shouldn't configure in gcc be made to
automatically test if -m64 is working on
the build machine in question and automatically
invoke --disable-multilib if not? Currently
on Darwin for example we
In the criteria for primary plattforms I've read that primary plattforms
have to be popular systems. Reading this as widely used I think that
this will be a requirement which mainframes are unlikely to meet in the
near future, so I propose to make s390 and s390x secondary plattforms for
now. I
Geoff,
Can you point me to the proposed patch in the gcc-patches
mailing list archives? I can't seem to find it.
Jack
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 10:24:36PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
I believe trying to disable the multilib is fundamentally the wrong
approach. I
Hi Robert,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:45AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
In the criteria for primary plattforms I've read that primary plattforms
have to be popular systems. Reading this as widely used I think that
this will be a requirement which mainframes are unlikely to meet in the
near
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Geoff,
Can you point me to the proposed patch in the gcc-patches
mailing list archives? I can't seem to find it.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2006-09/msg00027.html
It's automake -patches.
Peter
Peter,
Thanks. This problem was holding up the testing of the
libffi i386 Darwin patch because Sandro has a non-EMT64
MacBook Pro. He had to resort to --disable-multi.
Jack
ps If I understand this issue correctly, even if the automake
maintainers accepted the
Dear All
(sorry for such a naive question, I am a beginner within GCC)
How does one get the source location (e.g. start and end filename,
linenumber, ...) of a tree node; for example, the source position of every
loop inside current_loops or of every function body inside cgraph_nodes?
for these
On Oct 8, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
It turned out to be much easier than I thought to decipher the top
level
machinery and get GMP/MPFR building inside the GCC tree. :-)
Some thoughts, if this configures and builds most (all?) of the time,
then we are changing the portability
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 8, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
It turned out to be much easier than I thought to decipher the top level
machinery and get GMP/MPFR building inside the GCC tree. :-)
Some thoughts, if this configures and builds most (all?) of the
I would like to propose that a make pdf target be added to the GCC
general makefile.
I did a search to see if there was any previous discussion on this, and
what I found were a few messages from 1999 and 2001 that seemed to imply
that it might be a good idea, and even included a partial
Basile STARYNKEVITCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does one get the source location (e.g. start and end filename,
linenumber, ...) of a tree node; for example, the source position of every
loop inside current_loops or of every function body inside cgraph_nodes?
for these nodes, doing
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
How does one get the source location (e.g. start and end filename,
linenumber, ...) of a tree node;
You can use the same code as in tree-vectorizer.h:
#ifdef USE_MAPPED_LOCATION
typedef source_location LOC;
#define UNKNOWN_LOC UNKNOWN_LOCATION
#define
Robert Dewar wrote:
I would think it perfectly reasonable for the S/390 to be
considered a primary platform on the popularity basis
Another, technical, reason to consider the s390x to be a primary
platform is that it is a different 64-bit big-endian target.
I always watch the test-result
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Brooks Moses wrote:
I would like to propose that a make pdf target be added to the GCC general
makefile.
I agree. If you look at the current GNU Coding Standards you'll see a
series of targets {,install-}{html,dvi,pdf,ps} and associated directories
for installation.
At
Dear Steering Committee,
We, Sony Computer Entertainment, would like to contribute a port for a
new target, the Cell SPU, and seek acceptance from the Steering
Committee to do so.
(David Edelsohn indicated that before submitting patches we should
request acceptance for the new port from the
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Brooks Moses wrote:
I would like to propose that a make pdf target be added to the GCC general
makefile.
I agree. If you look at the current GNU Coding Standards you'll see a
series of targets {,install-}{html,dvi,pdf,ps} and associated directories
Hi,
I would like to reopen the discussion for pr/15795, or at least get
clarification on the current resolution of WONTFIX.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15795
Let me state right at the beginning that I am also volunteering to do
the actual work to come up with an agreed solution
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Has there been any thought to including GMP/MPFR in the GCC repository
like we do for zlib and intl?
I do not think we should be including more such packages in the GCC
repository. It's complicated from an FSF perspective and it bloats our
software. GCC is a
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:22:25PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Has there been any thought to including GMP/MPFR in the GCC repository
like we do for zlib and intl?
I do not think we should be including more such packages in the GCC
repository. It's complicated from
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 08:22
---
One point to remember is that C does not allow re-using of storage with a
different type (which is what PR29272 is about and why that testcase is
invalid).
The storage type is either the declared one or the one
--- Comment #7 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-10-09 08:28 ---
Subject: Re: Adding tasking support for arm-linux
... well, I can see differences, but is there any definite way of finding out,
how the C structures actually look like? Do I have to hunt this up in the
glibc
--- Comment #23 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12399)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12399action=view)
patch for mutex init
Can you try this? thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29118
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:28 ---
Can you provide a testcase where something goes wrong?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:32 ---
Hey Dave. Thanks for your persistence on this one: I think it's paid off. I can
see what you are talking about WRT mutex initialization, and have high hopes
for the attached patch. If you can try it, and let me know
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:50 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 9 10:49:50 2006
New Revision: 117571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117571
Log:
2006-10-09 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:14 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
please try the testcase in the orignal PR with idental string lengths. It will
crash gfortran as well.
Works for me. Please provide a testcase.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/pr/29267 cat t.f90
!
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:34 ---
As I said, I ran into this when playing around with PR29267, and it was ugly
enough to warrant a PR of its own. Glad you share my opinion :-) Just to make
this clear: I would never do something this ugly outside
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:39
---
The same thing is true for all the array manipulation functions:
integer :: i(-1:1,-1:1) = 0
integer :: j(-1:2) = 0
! This is working correctly
write(*,*) lbound(i(-1:1,-1:1)), ubound(i(-1:1,-1:1))
--- Comment #4 from tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:46 ---
Confirmed. gcc 3.4 and 4.2 work, 4.0 and 4.1 fail.
--
tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I found that bug while reducing PR29391, so it might be related (but I doubt
it).
$ cat a6.f90
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
write(*,*) lbound(any(i==1,2)), ubound(any(i==1,2))
write(*,*) lbound(count(i==1,2)), ubound(count(i==1,2))
write(*,*) lbound(matmul(i,i))
end
$ gfortran a6.f90
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:24 ---
The minimal fix is to not verify_cgraph_node if errorcount || sorrycount.
Bailing out earlier has interesting side-effects it seems.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:36
---
The generated code for:
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
integer :: j(1)
j = lbound(any(i==1,2))
end
is weird:
MAIN__ ()
{
int4 j[1];
_gfortran_set_std (70, 127, 0);
{
int8 S.0;
S.0 = 1;
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:44
---
And while I'm there, a few possibly related bugs:
$ cat pr29400-2.f90
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
logical :: l(2)
l = any(i==1,2)
end
$ gfortran pr29400-2.f90 ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: rank of
Hi.
There is a regression on i386 platforms.
int f(int a, int b)
{return (((long long) a) * b) 15;}
The gcc 4.0/4.1 generates with -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
movl8(%esp), %eax
imull 4(%esp)
shrdl $15, %edx, %eax
sarl$15, %edx
ret
While
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-10-09 12:57 ---
looks similar to PR26674.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-10-09 12:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
looks similar to PR26674.
oops, please ignore this comment.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 13:04 ---
We have
bool
decide_is_variable_needed (struct cgraph_varpool_node *node, tree decl)
{
/* If the user told us it is used, then it must be so. */
if (node-externally_visible || node-force_output)
return
--- Comment #10 from v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz 2006-10-09 14:16
---
Shouldn't the Known to fail field get all the versions from its duplicates
copied? Maybe that is why this rejects-valid bug is still not fixed even though
most other rejects-valid bugs get a lot of attention
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 14:25 ---
The frontend marks foo () TREE_STATIC in start_preparsed_function () and later
TREE_NOTHROW in finish_function () because
/* If this function can't throw any exceptions, remember that. */
if
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 14:58 ---
Confirmed. Ok for x86_64:
f:
.LFB2:
movslq %edi,%rdi
movslq %esi,%rsi
imulq %rdi, %rsi
sarq$15, %rsi
movl%esi, %eax
ret
We are expanding (int) ((long
--- Comment #13 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 15:55 ---
Subject: Bug 27880
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 15:55:38 2006
New Revision: 117576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117576
Log:
PR target/27880
* unwind-c.c (PERSONALITY_FUNCTION):
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:06 ---
Mine.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-10-09 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29323
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00458.html
--
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug 29254
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 9 16:10:38 2006
New Revision: 117577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117577
Log:
2006-10-09 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:11
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and I try a parallel make -j4, I get
the following error inside the gcc directory:
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `gt-c-pragma.h', needed by `c-pragma.o'.
Stop.
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
If I do a make -j4 -k it still gets the
--- Comment #25 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-10-09
16:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Timeouts in libstdc++, libjava and libgomp
testsuites
Hey Dave. Thanks for your persistence on this one: I think it's paid off. I
can
see what you are talking about WRT
From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00274.html
gfortran shows:
print ('(z20.8)'), i
1
Error: Syntax error in PRINT statement at (1)
The (optional) parentheses are allow (see below) and it works in ifort, NAG f95
and g95.
From Fortran 2003 standard Section 9.5 and 9.5.1.1:
R911
--- Comment #7 from ramana dot radhakrishnan at codito dot com 2006-10-09
16:33 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
flow.c is responsible for generating POST_INCs and POST_MODIFY's in 3.4 / 4.0 /
4.1 / 4.2 . I believe this is being replaced by the new data flow bits in the
data flow branch.
When I run make check on a three-stage bootstrapped tree, I get errors from
libiberty's testsuite:
cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -I..
-I../../../egcc-SVN20061008/libiberty/testsuite/../../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-I.. -o test-pexecute
../../../egcc-SVN20061008/libiberty/testsuite/test-pexecute.c
--- Comment #1 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-10-09
17:00 ---
What platform are you compiling on?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29404
I'm using this to track issues related to including GMP/MPFR in the GCC source
tree and building these libraries as part of the bootstrap process.
Initial discussion started here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00136.html
--
Summary: GCC should include latest GMP/MPFR sources
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:16 ---
I decided to explore including GMP/MPFR in the GCC tree. Dependency PR 29405
opened to track that enhancement.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:18 ---
Initial patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00416.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29405
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:22 ---
--disable-bootstrap is not really supported and really has not been tested any
more besides cross builds.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29404
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
What platform are you compiling on?
sorry, it's on sparc-sun-solaris2.10, using vendor's cc for stage1. You
probably won't see this problem if stage1 cc is any version of gcc, whether
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:28 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
--disable-bootstrap is not really supported and really has not been tested any
more besides cross builds.
Andrew please reread my initial report, I specifically talked about
three-stage
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
Reopening for a second to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 11407.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11407 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
*** Bug 28793 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:04 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:04:18 2006
New Revision: 117581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117581
Log:
2006-10-09 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #20 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:24 ---
Subject: Bug 28490
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:24:32 2006
New Revision: 117582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117582
Log:
PR target/28490
Backport from mainline
--- Comment #21 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:26 ---
Subject: Bug 28490
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:26:35 2006
New Revision: 117583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117583
Log:
PR target/28490
Backport from mainline
--- Comment #22 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 18:27 ---
Backported the change to 4.1 and 4.0 branches. Closing as fixed.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 18:31 ---
With the patch I just checked in, I believe that this defect is now fixed.
The uses of GetIPInfo in libstdc++ and libjava were fixed earlier, this latest
patch fixes the use in unwind-c.c and that should be it.
--
I was writing a magic squares program for my sons homework and somewhat
surprised/annoyed that gcc-4.1.1 and 4.0.3 have a horrible code generation bug.
Compiled with -O or -O2 on gcc-4.0.3 the following code infinitely loops.
gcc-4.1.1 with no optimisation works, but -O2 fails. Local variable n in
--- Comment #2 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2006-10-09 19:46 ---
Making the major.minor number (4.1, 4.2,...) part of the name sounds quite
fine to me!
(Sorry for the delay in responding to your question, Tom. I've been out last
week.)
--
--- Comment #3 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-10-09 20:11 ---
Subject: Re: implicit type declaration and contained function
clash
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
(BTW I added you to the CC list, it is kinda hard to answer in the right place
otherwise)
Oh s**t - next
---
program main
implicit none
contains
subroutine my
end subroutine my
subroutine bar
integer :: my
namelist /ops/ my
end subroutine bar
end program main
---
gives in gfortran the error message:
namelist /ops/ my
1
Error: PROCEDURE
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:55 ---
Subject: Bug 29312
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 9 20:55:29 2006
New Revision: 117584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117584
Log:
2006-10-06 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:55 ---
Subject: Bug 15441
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 9 20:55:29 2006
New Revision: 117584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117584
Log:
2006-10-06 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:57 ---
Fixed on trunk (until someone tells me ldexp doesn't exist).
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:58 ---
Fixed on trunk (until someone tells me ldexp doesn't exist)
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 20:58 ---
William, can you reproduce this problem with a newer GCC? I have tried several
versions of GCC and all I get is an error from shmget (Invalid argument).
Given that the shmget fails, the memcpy is obviously going to be
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-10-09 21:22 ---
Undefined behavior, i.e., anything can happen: array sq has got positions 0..8
whereas d = n % 10 spans 0..9, thus the code writes beyond the end of sq.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 21:45 ---
Note this issue is not c++ or libstdc++ specific. I see timeouts on old
hardware all over the testsuite on gcc-testresults.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28870
--- Comment #2 from fox at crisp dot demon dot co dot uk 2006-10-09 22:02
---
Sorry guys - yes a hopelessly stupid bug on my behalf. Feel free to remove this
report!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29406
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 23:53 ---
Subject: Bug 29095
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Oct 9 23:53:35 2006
New Revision: 117589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117589
Log:
2006-10-09 Benjamin Kosnik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from rpx at wp dot pl 2006-10-10 00:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=12400)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12400action=view)
the output of preprocessor
the bug appears with -mips16 compilation option; the compiler seams to be
sensitive on the number
works with 4.0.4, 4.1.1, 4.2.0, fails with 4.1 branch 20061008
$ g++ -c -Wall -fPIC -fexceptions -frtti -I/usr/include/python2.3
-I/usr/share/python2.3/CXX -I/usr/include/subversion-1 -I/usr/include/apr-1.0
-I. -DNDEBUG -o pysvn.o pysvn.cpp
/usr/include/python2.3/CXX/Objects.hxx:1932: error:
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-10-10
01:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=12401)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12401action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29408
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:26 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
3.4.4 (or 3.4.6) are the system compilers on FreeBSD-5.x and FreeBSD-6.x
So what, we are talking about the FSF GCC and not freebsd and 3.4.x is no
longer maintained
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:36 ---
This is in fact a duplicate of PR 20039.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20039 ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:36 ---
*** Bug 28990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:44 ---
Confirmed. Not a useful extension because confusing:
-
struct A;
struct B {
B (const A);
};
struct A {
operator B() const;
};
A a;
B b1 = a;// xpass
---
g/x
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:51 ---
Confirmed:
--
struct S { void operator () (); };
void foo ()
{
( S()() );
}
--
g/x /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.2-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc: In function #8216;void foo()#8217;:
x.cc:5:
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:54 ---
Confirmed. The code makes sense and we shouldn't unconditionally warn.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:56 ---
Indeed can't reproduce on x86.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29297
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:00 ---
The standard does not provide to explicitly specify the template
arguments of a constructor invocation. The syntax
nametype
refers to a template class 'name' with template argument 'type', not
to a template
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:11 ---
Confirmed:
--
template typename T struct A {};
template template typename class P
struct B {
template template typename class Q
friend bool foo (const BQ a);
};
template template typename class Q
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:13 ---
btw, this only happens if Q is really a template template argument. As noted
by the original reporter, the problem goes away if Q is simply a template
argument.
W.
--
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:24 ---
Your expectations are wrong. You probably believe that here
-
void f3()
{
D d3;
printf(3) getValue() - %d,, d3.getValue());
{
D d3 = d3;
printf(getValue() - %d\n,
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:27 ---
Here's the right combination of flags that warns (for f3() only):
g/x /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.2-pre/bin/c++ -Winit-self -Wuninitialized -O2 -c
x.cc
x.cc: In function #8216;void f3()#8217;:
x.cc:42: warning:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:31 ---
foo should not have been injected by the friend.
Note the Priority should be only changed by the release manager.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:38 ---
Subject: Bug 28349
Author: pinskia
Date: Tue Oct 10 04:38:25 2006
New Revision: 117595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117595
Log:
2006-10-09 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:38 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:51 ---
ALL_GTFILES_H should have included gt-c-pragma.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29402
--- Comment #37 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-10-10 04:54 ---
Additionally, you can petition ISO/C++ to provide a more elegant solution for
you.
VxWorks also does 16-byte alignment on ppc (for altivec) as I recall.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15795
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
