--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-22 00:04 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 09:34 ---
Great Janis, I will ask your help more often: hunts are very helpful for
quickly fixing recent bugs!
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 10:21 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 10:05 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 23:08 ---
Fixed for mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-19 14:43 ---
Thanks a lot!
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-19 15:17 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-19 17:59 ---
Hi again... A regression hunt would be useful for this one too...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 10:55 ---
Janis, is it possible to have a regression hunt? Thanks in advance.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 14:36 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 15:40 ---
Fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 15:39 ---
Thanks a lot Jakub, I'm going to do exactly that but as part of
cxx_pretty_print.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33462
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 18:06 ---
Fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 18:29 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33477 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 18:29 ---
*** Bug 33478 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33477
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33475 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** Bug 33481 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33475
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:06 ---
If Gaby agree with that change, I'm ok with it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** Bug 33480 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33475
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33475 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-17 17:22 ---
I can't reproduce the problem with current (128551) mainline. Likely a
transient issue, otherwise, please reopen.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-17 19:18 ---
Not actively working on it (for now)
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-16 22:55 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 11:14 ---
Thanks. The patch passes regtesting.
Maybe Andrew can help us for a reduced testcase?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 19:09 ---
Hi. So, what shall we do here? I can remove the warning completely or
conditionalize it to -Wextra, for example. Just let me know...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 17:35 ---
Feedback not forthcoming
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 02:08 ---
Jason, could you please have a look to this issue? In my hunt it appeared with
your fix for c++/14032 (r128076). Thanks.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 02:22 ---
Now the ICE is at line 6586. Can be triggered with this smaller snippet:
struct null_type;
templatetypename T1, typename T2
struct tuple_impl
{
templatetypename U
struct append
{
typedef tuple_implU, null_type
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-06 15:39 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-06 19:20 ---
Fixed in mainline and 4_2-branch.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 00:36 ---
Mark?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 00:34 ---
Now in mainline things are better:
26698.C: In member function X::operator X() const:
26698.C:25: error: invalid initialization of reference of type X from
expression of type const X
I'm not sure whether an error
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 00:39 ---
Meant line *38* of course, sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26698
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-05 09:33 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0. Frankly, I'm not interested in working on the other
branches...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-05 10:41 ---
Fixed in 4_2-branch too.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-05 19:12 ---
Fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 08:41 ---
The patch itself is trivial but in our experience changing the inlining
patterns can have far reaching and unpredictable fall-outs. Thus, better not
touching the release branches, sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 11:10 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 14:28 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 15:01 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 16:51 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 17:47 ---
Hummm, with reference to the patch in Comment #9: I don't think 'enum { };' is
flagged in the standard as ill-formed because of the empty enumerator-list
(that possibility is explicitly discussed in 7.2/5), but because
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 17:53 ---
Humm, no, anonymous enums are clearly legal, sorry about the stupid mistake.
Still, it's not completely clear to me the discussion in 7.2/5 of empty
enumerator-lists, evidently, we must assume those are illegal *only* when
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 12:09 ---
Fixing the second ICE.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 16:35 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 17:20 ---
Note, in GCC any -Ox, x 3 is identical to -O3.
Anyway, I think we can safely add inline to std::accumulate and
std::inner_product.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 17:50 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 13:03 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 15:23 ---
Currently 4_2-branch and 4_1-branch also give the same.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 17:12 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 23:00 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 23:29 ---
Humm, too tricky.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-01 20:52 ---
But do we really want 'a.A::b' ?!?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33208
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-01 21:11 ---
Thanks Gaby, let's see what I can do...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-01 22:14 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Paolo, what about
error (invalid use of Boolean expression as operand to %operator--%)
?
Cetainly works for me...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33208
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-31 08:41 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Aren't unused typedefs sometimes useful for static assertions and concept
checking, using templates?
I understand the general spirit of your concerns. However I'm under the
impression
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-31 08:44 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I did not mean to imply that the problem is unsolvable or NP-complete
or something like that. I just pointed out that usually we rely on
(1) data flow insfrastructure,
(2) uniqueness
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-31 09:12 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-31 09:58 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-31 10:32 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-31 11:41 ---
Fixed in mainline. Frankly, I'm not interested in fixing the issue in the other
branches, taking also into account that it dates back to 3_4...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-30 23:33 ---
Careful, only *in function bodies*.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-30 23:46 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Maybe the original idea could be refined to *local* typedef
declarations.
Of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-30 23:59 ---
Well, assuming there are no no-go theorems about that problem ;) I would be
certainly interested in studying the problem in better detail...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33219
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-28 08:52 ---
Fixed. By the way, in C++0x things will be rather different and more work on
random facilities properly belong there.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-28 08:56 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Totally agreed. In any case, I think we all agree that: 1- Miscompilations are
always very bad; 2- It is legal C++; 3- Any user, not just library authors, can
write such kind of code
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-28 09:59 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01906.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30896
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-28 15:56 ---
Out of curiosity, do you ever add -Wall to the command line?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33219
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-28 16:43 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-28 18:10 ---
Oops..
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-27 09:58 ---
Sorry, but the analysis doesn't make sense to me: if __convert_from_v is called
that way in _M_insert_float, it means _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 is undefined. In that
case __convert_from_v does *not* use __size for the simple reason
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-27 11:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Hm, if i look in
libstdc++-v3/config/locale/uclibc/c_locale.h
Then you are using a special version of GCC, not the official FSF one for which
we provide support, because such /uclibc directory
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|pcarlini at suse dot de |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-18 10:09 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 09:23 ---
Hi Volker. I will be away for some days on vacations... In the meanwhile, if
you could double check that we really want the fix for 27211 (not a regression)
on the branches and, in case, take care of the backport, it would
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 09:36 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 09:30 ---
Fixed for 4.2.2.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 10:22 ---
This is now fixed both in mainline and in 4_2-branch:
32190.C: In function 'int main()':
32190.C:5: error: template argument 1 is invalid
at this point, not being a regression, I think we can close it.
--
pcarlini
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 10:26 ---
Sure, I'll take care of that...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32190
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 15:30 ---
I guess we can indeed close this one as fixed in mainline...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 15:37 ---
FWIW, Comeau gives very similar errors:
ComeauTest.c, line 3: error: incomplete type is not allowed
union B b;
^
ComeauTest.c, line 6: error: tag kind of class or struct is incompatible
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 16:15 ---
This is fixed in the active branches. Now the diagnostic is:
18207.C: In constructor 's::s()':
18207.C:8: error: no matching function for call to 'm::m()'
18207.C:4: note: candidates are: m::m(const m)
18207.C
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 16:31 ---
Yes, let's patch-up this, but really I have to finish the builtin, this is only
temporary.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 16:40 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 18:09 ---
Hi Giovanni, any update on this?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-17 21:40 ---
Already fixed in 4_2-branch and mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-16 09:08 ---
Fixing the problem on 4_1-branch and 4_2-branch depends on fixing 27211...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
401 - 500 of 2278 matches
Mail list logo
