at cheuvreux dot com
GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29354
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jkanze at cheuvreux dot com
GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2..8
GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2..8
GCC target
at cheuvreux dot com
GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8, i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8, i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8, i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27216
--- Comment #3 from jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2006-04-13 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Are you building from a release version, correct?
As far as I know. It's version 4.1.0, downloaded
yesterday or the day before. How can I tell?
(I do want something more or less stable
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jkanze at cheuvreux dot com
GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27133
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-04 09:14
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| | Secondly, it is clear that your bug report is hypothetical. The
| | library maintainers do not typically deal in hypotheticals
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-04 12:46
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| [...]
| | This bug report came about because of a discussion in a news
| | group. Basically, I said to watch out for std::string
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-03 08:34
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| Isn't this a bug as opposed to enhancement? Enhancement
| suggests that the behaviour is basically correct, but could be
| improved
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-03 08:37
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| Does the C++ standard mention multithreading and Posix
| threads? ;)
No, but the g++ installation procedures do. According
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-03 08:56
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| I am sending this to the g++ bug list on the recommendation of
| Gabriel Dos Reis. From what little I've read in the g
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-03 09:09
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| Whereas I'm all for providing alternate memory management
| policies (we are very close to that in the v7-branch and I
| promise
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-03 10:59
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| I'm not sure what sort of help you are looking for. I thought
| that I very clearly pointed out the problem, and the point
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-03 15:57
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| This message, including any attachments may contain confidential and
| privileged material; it is intended only for the person
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jkanze at cheuvreux dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-02 13:22
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
Looks like it. The example function at the user level isn't the
same, but the basic problem is.
I'd forgotten I ever sent the first
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-05-02 13:30
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
| Two quick comments: 1- I'd like to keep open either 10350 or
| this one, I don't see much value in keeping open both. Ok
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-01-31 09:55
---
Subject: Re: exception not caught when passing through C code
This is documented somewhere in the docs, I think. If you mix C
codes with C++ and exceptions are raised (through callbacks) and
you need
ReportedBy: jkanze at cheuvreux dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19620
--- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-01-05 14:29
---
The context of the quote from the standard is:
If the constructor of the most derived class does not
specify a mem-initializer for the virtual base class
V In the code submitted, the constructor
19 matches
Mail list logo
