--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
06:18 ---
The test.s file assembles fine on my machine with GNU as 2.16. Could you
compile the test.i file with -v and post the command line passed to the
assembler?
--
--- Additional Comments From aaron_williams at net dot com 2005-08-04
06:25 ---
Subject: Re: gcc optimization error for sparc with xine/ffmpeg,
bad assembly generated
Hmmm, I though I had binutils 2.16.1, but it's actually 2.15... that
might be the problem. Trying to upgrade to
The nice litle program below does not work on 4.0.1 32 bit target code, running
on an Opteron.
The 64 bit target is OK.
The problem appears on both 3.4.3 and 4.0.1, I did not try other releases.
Regards,
Lex Augusteijn
#include stdio.h
typedef enum { FALSE, TRUE
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-08-04 08:07 ---
This program works for me in both 32 and 64 bit mode.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
09:04 ---
I'd like to mention a known problem with -frename-registers. Quoting my
analysis for another bug report:
However the underlying problem is still present and is now visible on x86-64:
the register
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
09:20 ---
It's an lvalue-cast, which we no longer support as an extension. So it's ICE on
invalid and a frontend bug. The C++ frontend spits out the interesting error
pr23155.c: In function void foo5(int):
The following code refuses to compile :
struct C;
template typename T
struct B;
template typename T
struct A;
void f(const C c);// this one is fine
void f(const BC a); // this one is fine
void f(const AC a); // this one triggers the bug
void f(double) {}
--- Additional Comments From christian dot joensson at gmail dot com
2005-08-04 09:46 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Also fixed in 3.4.5.
This is the currently, 2005-08-03, latest test results I have for 3.4:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-08/msg00196.html
and the gcc PCH
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
09:51 ---
The liveness analysis in df.c misses the registers marked in
flow.c:mark_regs_live_at_end, so that'd have to be fixed first.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15023
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
10:01 ---
This is the currently, 2005-08-03, latest test results I have for 3.4:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-08/msg00196.html
and the gcc PCH tests that FAIL are for -m64:
FAIL:
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 10:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: Error in Koenig Lookup causes overload resolution failure
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 10:13 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vectorT,
std::vectorT)
adah at netstd dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| 1) This bug is not in libstdc++, but in the C++ compiler.
yes
Maybe there are similar issues elsewhere, but this one happened
to bother me... This warning is also issed by GCC 3.3, so I guess
it is not a regression. But it's a silly warning after errors.
=== t.c ===
int bar (void);
int foo (void)
{
int i;
g++ 4.0.1 gives incorrect error message with void function declaration
implementation when using void main(). This can be demonstrated with the
following program:
--
void f1();
void main()
{
f1();
}
void f1()
{
}
The resulting error message
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
11:29 ---
I have a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
11:54 ---
Try killing the peephole2 for this. Somebody elses cost-metric should force
the constant into a register for the move ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23102
--- Additional Comments From joern dot rennecke at st dot com 2005-08-04
12:13 ---
Subject: Re: unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Could you give some specific examples of assesments that 3.4 can do and 4.1
can
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
12:19 ---
This happens again with fresh CVS (20050804). Still no idea?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 12:20 ---
Subject: Re: New: Silly unused variable warning after redeclaration of a
local variable
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Maybe there are similar issues elsewhere, but this
--- Additional Comments From peter at pogma dot com 2005-08-04 12:52
---
New(ish) patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00266.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21366
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
13:02 ---
Confirmed, weird.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
13:04 ---
Confirmed, a regression from 3.0.4 and 2.95.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
13:07 ---
IIRC SFINAE does not mean not instantiating the template class.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23227
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
13:10 ---
Strength reduction already happens before loop unrolling, but I guess
there could still be new opportunities after loop unrolling. Not sure
how significant that would be.
For the number of loop
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
13:14 ---
fmovdne %fcc1, %f50, %f8
Yep this is still a dup of bug 15247.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15247 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
13:14 ---
*** Bug 23222 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15247
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 13:26 ---
Subject: Re: SFINAE bug
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| IIRC SFINAE does not mean not instantiating the template class.
That is true. However, the real issue has nothing
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
13:36 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Strength reduction already happens before loop unrolling, but I guess
there could still be new opportunities after loop unrolling. Not sure
how significant that would be.
The following file is miscompiled by gcj -C:
public class Outer extends Thread {
public class Inner extends Thread {
private Inner () {
start ();
}
}
}
It uses the wrong this to call start():
Outer$Inner(Outer);
Code:
0: aload_0
1: aload_1
2: putfield
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||18131, 23220
nThis||
Keywords|
--- Additional Comments From greenrd at greenrd dot org 2005-08-04 15:07
---
Backtrace:
#0 0x08066846 in java_complete_lhs (node=0x0) at
/var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.1.0_beta20050730/work/gcc-4.1-20050730/gcc/java/parse.y:11665
#1 0x08066757 in java_complete_tree (node=0x0) at
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
15:23 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia
--- Additional Comments From greenrd at greenrd dot org 2005-08-04 15:26
---
The relevant part of the JLS is section 15.12.1 @
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/expressions.doc.html#20448
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23230
--- Additional Comments From jlquinn at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
15:34 ---
Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the test box, so I can't verify if
it's
working now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
when cross compiling the gcc 4.0.2 on a i686-pc-linux-gnu with
intel: binutils 2.16.1 - compiled with gcc 4.1.0
mips: binutils 2.16.1 - compiled with gcc 4.1.0
the following error occures:
/home/pfl/gnu/mips-sgi-irix6.5/bin/ld: unrecognized option '-_SYSTYPE_SVR4'
gcc version 4.1.0 20050730 (experimental)
The following two DATA statements are rejected by gfortran because J is not
considered a valid primary in those expressions although it is the variable of
another enclosing data-implied-do.
PROGRAM p
REAL :: ONE_ARRAY(100, 100)
INTEGER :: K, J
--- Additional Comments From rofi at ya dot com 2005-08-04 15:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=9431)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9431action=view)
Failing case with an optional commented checking part
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23232
This testcase causes an ICE at -O2:
void foo (volatile long long *x)
{
while (*x)
{
*x = 0;
*((volatile char *) 0) = 0;
}
}
with:
error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn:HI 25 21 27 2 (set (mem/v:QI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 124) 4) [0 S1 A8])
(subreg:QI (reg:DI 124) 7)) -1
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
16:15 ---
Confirmed, I wish loop.c would go away.
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|
--- Additional Comments From dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-08-04 17:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Try killing the peephole2 for this. Somebody elses cost-metric should force
the constant into a register for the move ...
Killing the peephole2 would just produce the
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-08-04 17:41 ---
Subject: Re: PCH largefile test fails on various platforms
Log message:
./
PR pch/14400
Backport from mainline:
With this change largefile.c now fails on
Following test program causes an internal compiler error,
$ cat y.c
double func ( double a, double b, double c)
{
double x0, x1, y0, y1;
int type = 0;
double ar;
if(b==0.0){
x0 = -c/a;
return( x0 1.0? 1.0 : ( x0 0.0 ? 0.0: x0));
}
if(a==0.0) {
y0 = -c/b;
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-08-04 17:54 ---
My patch added the largefile test to the 3.4 branch. I don't think that failing
a new test can be called a regression. I expect that the compiler would have
failed the test before, too, it's just that nobody knew
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
17:55 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
double func ( double a, double b, double c)
{
double y0;
if(a==0.0) {
y0 = -c/b;
return y0;
}
y0 = -c/b;
return y0;
}
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From uttamp at us dot ibm dot com 2005-08-04 17:57
---
(In reply to comment #1)
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
double func ( double a, double b, double c)
{
double y0;
if(a==0.0) {
y0 = -c/b;
return y0;
}
y0 = -c/b;
return y0;
}
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-08-04 18:04 ---
Subject: Re: PCH largefile test fails on various platforms
My patch added the largefile test to the 3.4 branch. I don't think that
failing
a new test can be called a regression. I expect
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
18:16 ---
Subject: Bug 22037
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-04 18:16:41
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog passes.c tree-cfg.c
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
18:17 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00283.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
18:31 ---
Confirmed, reducing a little further.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
18:43 ---
Reduced testcase:
enum eumtype { ENUM1, ENUM2 };
void g(const eumtype kind );
void f(long i);
void g(const eumtype kind)
{
if ((kind != ENUM1) (kind != ENUM2))
f(kind);
}
--- the tree before VRP:
--- Additional Comments From danalis at cis dot udel dot edu 2005-08-04
19:16 ---
For the record the reduced test case was derived from h07.cpp of bench++
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22563
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-08-04 19:18 ---
In general, once a ten-line testcase is found, do these get added
to the gcc regression testsuite as a matter of course?
We would be happy to submit patches to add these to the test suite, but
we don't have
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
19:22 ---
When the patch that fixes a bug is put into GCC the testcases go in as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23046
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
19:23 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
In general, once a ten-line testcase is found, do these get added
to the gcc regression testsuite as a matter of course?
In general once the fix is found, it will be added to the
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-08-04 19:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:191
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:18:13PM -, dank at kegel dot com wrote:
In general, once a ten-line testcase is found, do these get
$ gcc initramfs.i -O2 -c -funit-at-a-time
(...)
init/initramfs.c: At top level:
init/initramfs.c:10: error: message causes a section type conflict
init/initramfs.c:33: error: head causes a section type conflict
init/initramfs.c:80: error: ino causes a section type conflict
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-08-04 20:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=9433)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9433action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23237
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04 20:48
---
The reason that we're rejecting the m alternative is that we've expanded
+mr(blen) to
(set (reg/v:SI 60 [ blen.25 ])
(asm_operands:SI () (=mr) 2 [
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
20:58 ---
Reducing.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c execution, -Os
(a new test) have appeared on mainline on 20050804 on ia64-hp-hpux11.23, both
-mlp64 and -milp32.
--
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c execution fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-5.c scan-tree-dump Div.mod by constant b..=997
transformation on insn
(a new test) appeared on mainline on 20050802 on hppa2.0w-hpux and hppa64-hpux.
gcc-testresults shows it also failing on hppa-linux.
--
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-5.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
21:32 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
static __attribute__ ((__section__ (.init.data))) char *message;
static __attribute__ ((__section__ (.init.data))) int (*actions[])(void) = {};
void unpack_to_rootfs(void)
{
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
21:38 ---
Oh, this is truely part of classpath.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
21:38 ---
CC tromey.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
21:41 ---
I think the easy fix would change Makefile.am.
The following line:
JAVAC = $(srcdir)/split-for-gcj.sh $(MAKE) -f $(srcdir)/Makefile.gcj \
GCJ='$(GCJ)'
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
21:45 ---
This is a classpath issue
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
21:56 ---
This looks like a target issue.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
21:57 ---
This looks like a target issue.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04 22:03
---
Andrew, can you have a look at why this isn't being TER'ed back into the
asm_expr? It's not a 100% ideal solution to this problem, but I'll guess
that it'll handle at least some of the cases including this
--- Additional Comments From greenrd at greenrd dot org 2005-08-04 22:03
---
I'm testing a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
22:11 ---
TER will not work at -O0 though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23200
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
22:41 ---
This works in 4.1.0 20050802.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22425
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
22:49 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-08-04 23:09 ---
Fixed by this patch:
2005-07-14 Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ulrich Weigand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/20126
* loop.c (loop_givs_rescan): Do not
--
Bug 20126 depends on bug 22425, which changed state.
Bug 22425 Summary: [4.1 regression] ICE in loop_givs_rescan, at loop.c:5521
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22425
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
23:37 ---
Subject: Bug 21291
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-04 23:37:00
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-outof-ssa.c
Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
23:55 ---
Known.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
The following test code incorrectly generates an assertion failure on gcc
mainline and 4.0.1:
#include assert.h
struct fbs {
unsigned char uc8;
} fbs1 = {255};
void testfn ( struct fbs *fbs_ptr )
{
if ((fbs_ptr-uc8 != 255) (fbs_ptr-uc8 != 0))
assert(0);
}
int main (int argc, char
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23241
--- Additional Comments From jconner at apple dot com 2005-08-05 00:17
---
I believe I have tracked down the root of this behavior to an invalid
transformation in simplify_comparison
(from combine.c). See email thread starting here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-08/msg00159.html
Hi,
See the following snippet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc-snap -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,obj-c++,ada,treelang
--prefix=/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --disable-nls
On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:32 PM, ianw at gelato dot unsw dot edu dot au
wrote:
/* this one doesn't */
__asm__ __volatile__(xchgb %0, %1
: =r(old), =m(*newp)
: 0(0xff), m(*newp) : memory);
This is not a bug.
r is selecting %sil which is a valid register for x86_64.
r is assuming
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-08-05
01:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: Invalid %sil register chosen when dereferenced pointer used
in inline asm with -O0
On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:32 PM, ianw at gelato dot unsw dot edu dot au
wrote:
/* this one doesn't
--- Additional Comments From ianw at gelato dot unsw dot edu dot au
2005-08-05 02:17 ---
Subject: Re: Invalid %sil register chosen when dereferenced pointer used in
inline asm with -O0
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:35:51AM -, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
wrote:
On Aug 4,
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
02:33 ---
Subject: Bug 21291
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-05 02:33:11
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05 02:34
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
02:42 ---
Subject: Bug 21529
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-05 02:42:07
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog params.def params.h
The iterators over hash_map behave in a manner inconsistent with the other
std::map, std::list, etc... data structures. This can cause segfaults which are
hard to root-cause. Sample Code Included with additional information:
Specifically, the iterators over hash_map require the 'first' datamember
--- Additional Comments From jzampier at gmail dot com 2005-08-05 02:58
---
Created an attachment (id=9434)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9434action=view)
The offending code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23244
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05 03:14
---
No, because you still need to use Q to get a register that may be used
with a low-part. Even on i486.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
03:32 ---
*** Bug 23243 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23242
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
03:35 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
03:40 ---
Just a note for fullness, this was caused by the patch which fixed PR 19296.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23241
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
03:43 ---
Fixed by:
2005-08-04 Jan Hubicka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* profile.c (branch_prob): Split edges with goto locus on them
to get proper line counts.
* tree-cfg.c (make_cond_expr_edges):
--- Additional Comments From sethml at google dot com 2005-08-05 03:43
---
The C++ working group examined this issue in April as core language issue 488:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#488
They tentatively concluded that type deduction should fail in this
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
03:48 ---
Reopening to ...
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
03:48 ---
To suspend it as the DR is still in drafting.
--
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
