Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ethouris at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I have the following definition (requires `` and ``):
```
template
inline Stream& Print(Stream& in)
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ethouris at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48906
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48906=edit
Preprocessed C++ file with example.
I'm attaching a quite long preprocessed f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66658
Michal Malecki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ethouris at gmail dot com
--- Comment
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ethouris at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Sorry if this already passed through somehow, but there was no trace of this
problem so far in gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65448
--- Comment #2 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
Which tools? Shouldn't those tools be fixed instead?
The problem is that it's very easy to interpret the format that every line
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ethouris at gmail dot com
When gcc reports a compile error that refers to a line in a file that is
included by another include file, which is finally included by the *.cpp file
being compiled, it reports the error more-less
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31397
Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ethouris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #14 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com 2012-11-06
23:32:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
if the DR makes it ill-formed and GCC rejects it is this FIXED?
GCC rejects it by doing ICE. I don't think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #16 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com 2012-11-07
07:17:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
GCC rejects it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the right thing that
GCC
should do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #5 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com 2012-07-26
20:18:36 UTC ---
Looks nice. Is that a big deal if you also make a standard [[noreturn]]
attribute simply an alias to [[gnu::noreturn]]? As far as I know the standard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ethouris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #10 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com 2012-04-23
12:38:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
2. The code is rejected the following way: the template specialization
definition is itself rejected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #8 from Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com 2012-04-21
12:06:36 UTC ---
Jason,
There is no better or worse specialization - the first one is a primary
template, not a specialization.
The example of tuple_slice1, int, int, int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Bug #: 52008
Summary: [C++0x] ICE when adding partial specialization for
variadic-templated structure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50998
Michal Malecki ethouris at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ethouris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50563
Bug #: 50563
Summary: Weird syntax acceptance rules for non-static data
members initialized in place (C++0x)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48489
Summary: Invalid error message 'has no member named' when
referring directly to the base class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
--- Comment #4 from ethouris at gmail dot com 2010-05-18 07:14 ---
No matter which entity is actually affected in the example above, 'foo' is a
type of field used inside the entity. In all these cases, deprecation warning
should not be reported for the field of type 'foo'. It should
--- Comment #7 from ethouris at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 18:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=17194)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17194action=view)
Preprocessed source that caused the problem
The problem is reported for line 40 in msigslot.h, where a 'friend
--- Comment #8 from ethouris at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 18:35 ---
I added as attachment the code that causes the same error message.
Please note that this code was compiling and working correctly with the old
Doug Gregor's patch, which was the first version of 'variadic template
21 matches
Mail list logo
