--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-16 11:04
---
On it.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-16 08:48
---
Joaquin, I'm trying to investigate this in some detail, and I think it would be
good if the LWG knew also about this performance issue with begin(), besides
579, I cannot find anywhere a discussion
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44552
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-15 23:13
---
For the record, neither ICC nor SunStudio warn. I seem to remember that in the
past people often commented that it's pretty tough to produce warnings for this
kind of mistake.
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-13 17:53
---
*** Bug 44528 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-13 17:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42101 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-13 12:12
---
First, note that the *extractor*, ie, read, is slower, not the inserter. That
said, I think it's not at all obvious that read must be faster than the pointer
extractor, because in the latter case the pa
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 23:23
---
Thanks Janis. I think that Jason reviewed your C++ contributions regarding
decimal floating point, thus, once more, I'm adding him in CC hoping for help
on this issue.
In a nutshell, it seems that some
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 14:54
---
Fixed for 4.6.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 14:07
---
I'm tempted to commit Suresh patch, properly tweaked for the copyright years,
in mainline and close the PR: I think it's short enough to not require a full
assignment, and we can certainly i
--- Comment #22 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 13:38
---
Jon, I would recommend closing this. We don't want to fiddle with auto_ptr
anyway, and the small issue with shared_ptr is fixed for 4.6.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 13:35
---
Still looking for feedback from the port maintainer... Suresh, the next issue
you are having should be reported separately, it's a compiler proper issue,
being an internal compiler error.
--
paol
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 10:29
---
Fixed for 4.5.1.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 08:16
---
Sorry, I meant Bullet 5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44487
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 08:14
---
Thanks Jason. Actually, the issue seems already known, LWG 1326, Bullet 4 of
the proposed resolution (the name of the issue isn't particularly telling, I
would say). It's still [New] But I guess we
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 01:07
---
The constructor at issue is trivially conforming to the most recent specs
(n3092) (*), thus, in my opinion, either this is a compiler issue, or a defect
in c++0x or a feature in c++0x itself, can't
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 00:26
---
As far as we can see can't be substantively improved. See also the thread
starting at: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2010-06/msg00073.html
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 21:48
---
Oops, thanks Joseph.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 17:05
---
Thanks HJ.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43838
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 15:52
---
In general, only if it's a regression. And nobody said that explicitly so far.
If you want to argue for having it anyway in 4_5-branch, please speak on the
mailing list and ask permission to the re
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 15:46
---
I see. Looks like Matt essentially followed in the reference implementation the
legacy HP / SGI, linear, way of computing begin(). I'm asking his opinion on
this, whether we are also going to use cachi
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 15:36
---
Fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 15:13
---
I gave this more thought, and to be honest, focusing on 64-bit targets - I
think that for 32-bit targets what we have is already good enough - I have no
idea how to substantively improve the code, given that
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 09:49
---
I'm sure you are right, but I don't understand your explanation: even when
SYMBOL
is undefined, why no code actually uses (roughly speaking, reads) var? That's
the point of the warning and your
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 09:37
---
Recategorizing as other (like 42230)... and maybe HJ is interested in playing a
bit with this one too.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 08:54
---
Non pre-processed testcase. Apparently some buffer is overflowed.
#include
namespace abcdefgxyzzzabb
{
class Aaa { };
namespace klmn
{
class Baaa { };
}
}
namespace boost
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 08:32
---
Rainer, can you help me on this? I don't even know how to categorize it, if
it's purely an ar issue or what else, I think you know this target...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot c
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-09 08:27
---
Janis, this doesn't make sense to me, and for sure happens only with decimal.
Can you have a look?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-08 18:05
---
Ian, any idea what may be happening here?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43838
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-08 18:02
---
I also double checked that indeed the last "null_type" appears truncated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43838
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-08 17:57
---
Excellent, thanks a lot.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-08 15:59
---
Let's do this change first in ext/vstring and let's see how people react. In
that case we also have the advantage that nothing is exported from the *.so,
thus old code linking to the new lib wil
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-08 15:09
---
I'm not convinced. The code at issue is used when memcmp returns zero, thus one
string is a prefix of the other, a well defined situation. For *eons* we have
been returning a number which is much large
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-08 01:49
---
Yes.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-08 01:49
---
Fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 22:29
---
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44401
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 15:27
---
Errata: "... by before ..." should read "... before
wants to include ..."
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44417
--- Comment #15 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 15:23
---
Johannes, can you try the patch and in case, give me some details about the
remaining issues? The idea is simply that if a glibc header has been included
by before , then __GLIBC__ is defined and
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 15:17
---
Created an attachment (id=20855)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20855&action=view)
Tentative patch (only sanity checked on a system not affected by the glibc
issue)
--
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 14:52
---
I think Jon is right on both accounts: the request is reasonable, but, even
before that last changes, thus since the very beginning of v3:
if (!__r)
__r = __size - __osize;
thus, I think
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 14:03
---
Yes, we lack *tons* of other C++0x things.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |paolo dot carlini at oracle
|dot org
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 10:18
---
As a matter of fact, in testsuite_allocator.h the problem can be solved much
more cleanly by simply qualifying with std:: the size_t and ptrdiff_t in tge
second half of the file, I can do that later today
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-07 10:09
---
Yes, it's a glibc bug (I don't have available any machine using that old
glibc), and if you look at the mailing list, I already commented that could be
related to your issue. I think we should us
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 18:55
---
Something is broken in your system, I also tested on an Open Suse 11.1, to be
sure, and everything works fine. Remove everything, fetch again the entire gcc
mainline and try again.
--
paolo dot carlini at
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 14:55
---
Closing.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 14:52
---
Note that cxxabi.h already includes and at that line 371 uses
ptrdiff_t unqualified, thus everything is fine. I suspect you simply forgot to
update your compiler, because the current library does not work
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 14:29
---
Not a duplicate, another issue.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 14:28
---
Hey, 44416 is *not* a duplicate! Please re-open it immediately.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44417
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 14:23
---
To be clear: does a normal 'make check' (either from the root of the build dir
or from inside the library build dir) work? Because it works here and fo
everybody else on the testresult mailing list
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 13:49
---
I can't reproduce this. I booted and tested many times on various linux systems
and HJ already reported many succesfull testresults since. Please remove
everything from the build dir, gave everything fres
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 13:42
---
I do not have access to those benchmarks. Whoever has, should check that
ptrdiff_t is used properly, either after including , then it can be
used both qualified with std:: and unqualified together with v3, or
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 00:28
---
Ok, let me open another PR. Would you suggest somebody to add in CC?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44362
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 00:17
---
Is this also the same issue? Probably not, but it causes tons of warnings in
the libstdc++ testsuite (with -Wall in CXXFLAGS) and seems bogus to me.
struct ratio
{
static const int a = 3;
};
const int
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-03 23:51
---
Fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-03 23:31
---
Actually, the testcases must be fixed, qualifying size_t with std::. I'll do
that momentarily as obvious.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-03 17:00
---
Jason certainly followed these developments, I remember, let's CC him.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-03 16:40
---
Let's CC Jason...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-03 10:16
---
About -Weffc++, we also have a PR (16166) about splitting it... Not that I
think we should really do that - adding a dozen of -Weffc++-type warnings - but
I believe it would be a good idea to finally resolve
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 20:26
---
Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44333
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 17:37
---
*** Bug 44333 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 17:37
---
So it's already known...
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23594 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 17:18
---
Thanks a lot.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40296
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 17:03
---
For sure something may have changed in the working paper, we are talking about
1 year since these changes. Jon can you have a look to this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40296
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 15:30
---
Hey! Stop it
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 44380 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 15:30
---
*** Bug 44389 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44380
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 15:29
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 44380 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 15:29
---
*** Bug 44388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44380
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 15:25
---
*** Bug 44387 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44380
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 15:25
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 44380 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-02 15:17
---
Works fine with 4_5-branch and mainline.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-01 08:47
---
Jason, can you have a look to this?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-31 18:19
---
-Wall tells you indeed that you have a multi-line comment, just \ triggers it,
the space doesn't make any difference. And if you have a multi-line comment,
what else you can expect for the output of th
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-31 18:02
---
There is nothing strange about this, the backslash simply means that the
comment, which start after the //, continues to the next line, thus the second
printf is part of the comment. Just use -E to see that
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-31 16:38
---
I applied the fix to 4_5-branch too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-05/msg01139.html
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-31 14:28
---
Alexander, please backport the fix to 4_5-branch and close the PR. Thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-31 09:29
---
Works in current 4_4-branch, 4_5-branch, and mainline.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-31 01:24
---
... and I think the correct way to achieve what you want now would be:
std::set, std::owner_less>> wStdSet;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44339
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-31 00:52
---
I'm adding Jon in CC, but I think it's safe to close this PR as invalid: if you
look at n3090 (the latest working draft), it's clear that std::weak_ptr is
*not* LessThanComparable. However, if
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-30 15:54
---
And replacing both:
using namespace my;
with
using my::my_size_t;
instead works. This is crazy (IMHO ;) and would not be a workaround for me)
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed
ion: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44333
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-29 09:30
---
Works fine in 4_5-branch and mainline, the behavior in 4_3-branch and
4_4-branch isn't a regression in any way, as fas as I can see.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-28 08:56
---
I don't think anybody is seriously interested in looking into this, it doesn't
affect any other actively maintained target.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-27 20:53
---
Moot now.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-27 20:52
---
Can be closed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #38 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-27 17:46
---
Fixed for 4.5.1.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #35 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-27 16:25
---
Note, plain pointers and pointers to const must be dealt with separately.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40497
--- Comment #34 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-27 11:58
---
Ok, let's do this, seems definitely an improvement, and since affects only
C++0x and enables more people to test it, I think should go in 4_5-branch too.
By the way, if I remember correctly, Howard used
--- Comment #32 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-27 10:51
---
You mean, in practice, we should only check that difference_type exists?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40497
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo dot carlini at oracle |
|dot com
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-25 20:57
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01912.html we are going to
have __int128 and unsigned __int128.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-25 20:55
---
Jon, can you have a look and apply the patch to the relevant branches? Thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-25 09:28
---
For the record, both Intel and Comeau accept this. Let's CC Jason...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18249
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-24 21:47
---
Can you please provide a shorter, self-contained (no includes), testcase?
Thanks in advance. CC-ing Ian...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-23 09:27
---
Crazy, thanks for looking into it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41510
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-22 20:21
---
Hi Gaby: actually, I don't think it does, see the error messages above, which
are still up to date, as far as I can see. I will double check, anyway, and if
I notice something new I'll let you
301 - 400 of 2575 matches
Mail list logo
