--- Comment #6 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-07-28 18:42
---
The next step would be to verify that the penalty is eliminated when using
boost::function / tr1::function
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40874
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40874
--- Comment #3 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-07-27 16:26
---
The missing inlining is the cause, abstraction penalty is the symptom.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40874
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
GCC build triplet: 4.4.0
GCC target triplet: i386-apple-darwin-9.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40063
--- Comment #31 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-04-09 13:58
---
OK, I don't get what it's controlling then, but maybe that's not important.
Still, I suggest you choose a more specific name to leave the door open for
prettier template printing in the future. If you did
--- Comment #29 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-04-08 19:49
---
Although I really appreciate the fix, I really don't like the name of the
option. Pretty templates means something much more like the formatting I
used in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25185#c2
I
--- Comment #16 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-04-03 19:38
---
(In reply to comment #13)
GCC will now say
../../../../boost/sequence/make_range.hpp:60: instantiated from
boost::sequence::detail::range_makerElements, Begin, End, CalcSize::type
boost::sequence
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-03-03 21:11
---
I don't know that SFINAE has anything to do with this. Looks like I was just
doing namespace composition.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21682
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-03-02 16:39
---
Why do you think I want to see the typedef name when I've explicitly asked for
the opposite?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25185
--- Comment #9 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2009-03-02 20:24
---
Hi Jason,
Please assume I know what I'm asking for and stop turning it into a different
problem. Go back and look at the original report more closely, particularly
the part that discusses boost
--- Comment #2 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2008-11-06 19:59
---
This is really a serious problem!
For example, consider this error message I got today. If you look carefully,
you can see the fundamental problem is that two unsigned int lvalues are being
passed
--- Comment #10 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2008-07-20 19:15
---
Since the issue in question is now a DR, can this bug be re-activated?
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_defects.html#218
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17365
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36883
--- Comment #7 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-27 23:07
---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Use this technique. In fact, if you can, use my code.
In fact, Howard already mentioned that, at some point. To be clear, and avoid
misunderstandings, I
--- Comment #2 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-21 14:25
---
I won't push the subject any further, but again, if you don't adopt the tests
mentioned in the threads cited above, you will almost certainly have further
exception safety bugs lurking. Howard Hinnant can
--- Comment #5 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2007-05-21 17:16
---
Just adding a throwing allocator (especially one that throws
randomly like this one) will not test the library guarantees anywhere
nearly as effectively as the STLPort tests do. The technique is
outlined in http
--
Summary: Exception-safety bug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
--- Comment #3 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2006-05-01 02:43
---
I'm afraid I don't.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26904
inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2006-03-28 15:16
---
Created an attachment (id=11136)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11136action=view)
Preprocessed C++ source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26904
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25185
--- Comment #1 from dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-11-30 17:48
---
Created an attachment (id=10370)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10370action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25185
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-22
03:11 ---
Subject: Re: Download Releases doesn't take me to appropriate info
gerald at pfeifer dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com 2005-05-21 23:24
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: web
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
15:38 ---
Subject: Re: Download Releases doesn't take me to appropriate info
pcarlini at suse dot de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-20 15:20
org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
17:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=8938)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8938action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at boost-consulting dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
17:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=8939)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8939action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21682
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
18:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This code is invalid.
How did you come to that determination?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
19:56 ---
The code is definitely invalid; I was just wondering how you decided that so
quickly ;-)
It still should never cause an ICE, of course ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
23:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Internal Compiler Error
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
19:59
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-26
12:57 ---
Subject: Re: Do not print default template arguments in error messages
gdr at integrable-solutions dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-26
16:14 ---
This is obviously becoming personal. I wanted a record of my technical concerns
in the bug database, but as the tone has changed I don't think it's appropriate
to continue this here. I will reply
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-27
01:52 ---
This is obviously becoming personal. I wanted a record of my technical concerns
in the bug database, but as the tone has changed I don't think it's appropriate
to continue this here. I will reply
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-26
02:01 ---
Subject: Re: Do not print default template arguments in error messages
gdr at integrable-solutions dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-23
12:55 ---
Doesn't sound right to me.
I think you should either show vectorT or include A in the with clause of
vectorT,A. I'm sort of inclined to the former; Don't forget that parameter
names are not always so
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-03-23
04:55 ---
should GCC try and remember which arguments were really specified in the
template-id (hard to do), or a simple check of equalness between the argument
and the default parameter would suffice?
GCC
38 matches
Mail list logo
