3dw...@verizon.net
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 03:13:07 PM EST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 19:15, Claudio Bantaloukas via Gcc
wrote:
>
> On 26/01/2024 17:51, Florin Mateoc via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am an experienced software developer,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83803
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Forgot compiler info:
ed@ed-VirtualBox:~$ ./bin/bin/gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./bin/bin/gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ed/bin/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43101
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43101=edit
nocloseparen.f95 mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83237
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83120
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
In my regen of the testcases, I clobbered some dg-extra-options or something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 42635
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42635=edit
Patch with regenerated testcases for all. tr1 and std.
2017-11-17 Edward Smit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
in other news I've switched to boost to test this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
My last comment is nuts. I was thrown by the fact that GSL, against which I've
been testing, and the Carlson papers that form the basis if the implementation
use t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83025
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 42628
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42628=edit
patch...
enable_if with is_class_v.
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42627
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42627=edit
Example showing error. Compile with -std=c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 41198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41198=edit
Testing a patch...
I'm testing the following:
2017-04-13 Edward Smith-Rowl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 41079
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41079=edit
Correct sign of negative arg tgammaq.
Basically,
return (x > 0.0Q || (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I concur with this solution.
I can make a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Well, for whatever reason, TR29124 and C++17 chose the - in front of \nu.
As long as we document and warn I think this isn't a defect.
I'll dig through the docs and get back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 01/20/2016 11:46 PM, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
>
> --- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 01/19/2016 10:19 PM, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
>
> Bug ID: 69371
> S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60858
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
After the fix for PR61389 goes in we'll get:
[ed@localhost tr2]$ /home/ed/bin/bin/g++ -std=gnu++11 -Wpedantic -c
test_pr44317.cpp
test_pr44317.cpp:7:17: warning: ISO C++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Here is a shot at the language of variadic macro arguments in macro.c:
Index: macro.c
===
--- macro.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Do you want me to merge my variadic macro language and your final whole-string
version (I had started on a %s solution too ;o))?
Or are you on a roll?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 33085
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33085action=edit
Basic patch for C error messages in C++
This needs building and testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Add a dependency: 44317
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
At least it's closely related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I need a tool like PROCESSING_REAL_TEMPLATE_DECL_P except for specializations
in that it is true only for the most recent or latest or innermost declaration.
I need a replacement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58155
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 33053
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33053action=edit
Patch to not warn if skipping.
I still need a testcase or two.
2014-07-02 Edward
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
In typeck.c/check_literal_operator_args
Make this change:
- if (processing_template_decl || processing_specialization)
+ /*if (processing_template_decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Put this and it works.
if (PROCESSING_REAL_TEMPLATE_DECL_P() || processing_specialization)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 33026
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33026action=edit
patch_from_hell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
On 06/27/2014 05:39 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
On 06/28/2014 10:03 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
On 06/28/2014 10:03 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #13 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 33020
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33020action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ...
I think I got it.
Don't mess with the token stream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 33021
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33021action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ..
I think I got it.
Don't mess with the token stream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 33019
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33019action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ...
I think I got it.
Don't mess with the token stream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 33022
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33022action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ...
I think I got it.
Don't mess with the token stream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
On 06/25/2014 01:45 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 32792
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32792action=edit
Better patch with test case.
2014-05-13 Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I'm pretty sure I have my arms around this one.
Two questions:
1. Any ideas on how to make testsuite cases? Any examples of looking at
preprocessed files in the testsuite?
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Note to self: you DO need to take care of char...
void
operator _t(const char)
{
}
#define QUOTE(s) #s
int
main()
{
QUOTE(''_t);
QUOTE('\''_t);
QUOTE('\\'_t);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
--- Comment #15 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I agree. My examples are working.
Unfortunately, my account seems to not have the permissions to close a bug. I
am a maintainer.
Any ideas how I can get such permissions set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
--- Comment #16 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Sorry for the noise. I reported a dupe not this bug.
My question on permissions still stands though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #11 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
This may be related to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781 -
another decltype user-defined literal bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Right now, -std=c++1y means anything after c++11. Does anyone have an idea
about what happens when C++14 and these other TSen actually come out?
I guess I was thinking as far
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #8 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I put this in a while back because it looked like it was going into C++14. I
jumped to gun. Unfortunately, I am not on a place where I can look at this
until Tuesday.
It should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59531
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Also, we should throw when pos size() rather than pos = size().
Spinning new patches and testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59530
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I mistakenly took cases for string which must be null terminated.
I think we'll just remove those lines from the testcases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53683
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57640
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42825
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48014
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Strangely, head works: http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/CnsddYRxUohlCGF1
Although mine still gets the error.
I did something that might have helped for 4.9. If I can prove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
OK, it took me a while to remember this (even though I put it in myself).
By default, g++ -std=c++11/1y intercepts numeric suffixes for C++11
user-defined literals.
By default g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34881
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
On 11/09/2013 06:02 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34881
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What
Let me try that again. Sorry for the dupe and the bad subject in the previous
message.
This patch fixes a small stylistic nit in the user-defined literal operators in
the standard library.I propose we prefer: operatorsuf - with no spacerather
than: operator suf - with spaceIt is only strictly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 31061
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31061action=edit
Busybox showing that the passed in string to the operator is OK.
When I run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31061|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Q; Is this a regression?
A: No.
See http://ideone.com/8JS3Yf
This is gcc-4.8.1 (needed a space between and _s but still errors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
So I'll post this patch to gcc-patches. Thanks.
In other news, people are thinking about a bitops library:
https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/std
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
The const qualification of the first parm and the number of elements are wrong.
I'm testing a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
This is wrong. Testing a patch...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Hristo,
Thanks for finishing your thought.
So if i have:
templatetypename CharT, CharT... str
void
operator_foo
{
ChatT arr[]{str...};
}
U\x1\x10001\x10002_foo
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Created attachment 30603
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30603action=edit
Patch triggering a range of bad errors.
This bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58072
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 30604
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30604action=edit
Patch c_parse_error to catch and describe user-defined literal tokens
explicitly.
gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I think I need to test for keyword in addition to testing for macro in
libcpp/lex.c
I'll look at this.
I'll also look at getting a better error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
No, I remember now. This code *cannot* be right.
With the addition of user-defined literals in C++11 and DR1473
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3675
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
On 08/02/2013 01:47 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot
On 06/18/13, Jonathan Wakelyjwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2013 07:04, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14
faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float
operator:
constexpr complexfloat
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Since we added literal operators to the standard library I noticed that
if you explicitly call a std literal operator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57640
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 30317
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30317action=edit
Add declarator_p to checks to trigger warning.
Testing this fully but I think
Here is an overdue patch for the Airy function.
I repair the void function and I out two Airy functions as C++ extensions.
Built and tested on x86_64-linux.
OK?
Ed
CL_Airy
Description: Binary data
patch_Airy4
Description: Binary data
On 05/31/13, Ed Smith-Rowland3dw...@verizon.net wrote:
...
1. Put the precision first in upper case. As a matter of style I
prefer 123456L to 123456l for normal literals anyway. Also, the
precision snuggles next to the number - then you modify it. That seems
logical to me. Also,
On 04/30/13, Jakub Jelinekja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:23:49AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
I've updated the webpage.
Perhaps it would be nice if we had some testsuite coverage for it too,
right now unless I'm blind there are exactly 2 testcases, using one 0b...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Bug #: 56821
Summary: Unable to overload with references to 'this'.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason
On 03/01/13, Ulrich Drepperdrep...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a few more distributions to be added. The triangle
distribution is the result of combining to uniform distributions and
therefore quite frequently used. The von Mises distribution (the
simple, 2D version) would be the first circular
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56430
Bug #: 56430
Summary: In __airy: return-statement with a value, in function
returning 'void'.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56430
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2013-02-22
22:33:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 29526
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29526
Patch with better test case.
Added checks for new template
On 02/21/13, Alec Teala.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 21/02/13 16:32, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
How about the attached file as a start for ext/math. I used the
constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
constants that are available in math.h in Unix.
What other constants
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56216
Bug #: 56216
Summary: TR1 bessel functions bomb at x == 0!
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56216
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2013-02-06
04:39:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 29362
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29362
Patch including testcase and other cleanups.
This patch adds
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
Bug #: 56193
Summary: ios_base should replace operator void* with explicit
operator bool in C++11 onwards.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2013-02-03
17:40:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 29343
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29343
Patch including testcase.
Here is a small patch. I'm not ure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55582
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-12-05
13:18:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 28882
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28882
Patch
This patch lexes stringXYZ user-defined literals as *two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55582
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28882|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55582
Bug #: 55582
Summary: [C++11] Unable to define string user-defined literal
without leading underscore.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #19 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-28
03:05:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 28814
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28814
Patch.
Here is a final patch for this.
Ultimately we should
I looks like there were a couple
#ifdef __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
in the patch. I think you want to change these to
#if __cplusplus = 201103L
?
Regards,
Ed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #18 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
13:07:00 UTC ---
I added a bullet for this flag in gcc-4.8/changes.html.
How does one close a bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
20:20:27 UTC ---
OK, g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C will fail with the patch to control GNU
literal parsing. i.e. this behavior in intended.
The purpose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
21:52:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Invoke with gnu++0x:
// { dg-options -std=gnu++0x }
Invoke with new flag:
// { dg-options -std=c++0x -fext
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
22:18:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the
problem
seems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #16 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-12
17:48:29 UTC ---
Thanks, So If there are several ChangeLogs in the tree to get updated which one
do I put in the svn commit? Or does it matter?
Also, I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28617|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #13 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-06
17:54:31 UTC ---
The patch tests clean on x86_64-linux.
On 11/06/12, Jason Merrillja...@redhat.com wrote:
Why three separate flags?
I thought extra flexibility might be wanted. On the other hand, *I* would
never turn off just one set. I expect a food fight over all flags. Also, if,
as seems reasonable, strict ANSI turns off all gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #11 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-05
04:50:20 UTC ---
Here is a patch that should work. it passes on x86_64 linux.
I would like to get this in for 4.8 if possible.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-05
04:55:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 28617
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28617
Patch to implement flags allowing gnu suffixes to be used as user
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
