--- Comment #16 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-01-30 15:49 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Excuse me, but I do not understand what makes this code invalid. Could anybody
explain? If so, does this apply to all the test cases given (also for bugs
that
are marked as duplicates of
--- Comment #17 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-01-30 15:51 ---
*** Bug 38681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 10:20
---
GCC 4.3.3 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 22:22
---
My patch is causing a couple of regressions:
FAIL: g++.dg/template/non-dependent8.C (test for errors, line 20)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/overload2.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.pt/ptrmem6.C (test
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:28 ---
I almost want to say http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01605.html
caused it. Still looking into it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:37
---
(In reply to comment #9)
I almost want to say http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01605.html
caused it. Still looking into it.
Yes that caused it, it removed the check to make sure TYPE_PTRMEM_P is
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:40
---
Patch which I am testing:
Index: pt.c
===
--- pt.c(revision 142951)
+++ pt.c(working copy)
@@ -4626,6 +4626,13 @@
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 05:22
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Patch which I am testing:
Index: pt.c
===
--- pt.c(revision 142951)
+++ pt.c(working copy)
@@ -4626,6
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 05:35
---
That patch removed lots of code that is nessarry for this check, I have to add
back
+/* The call to perform_qualification_conversions will
+ insert a NOP_EXPR over EXPR to do express conversion,
+
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 06:53 ---
*** Bug 35268 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-27 14:25 ---
Take the testcase in comment #2, p is not a valid template argument because it
is not valid constant expression.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:05 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37093
--- Comment #5 from maksverver at geocities dot com 2008-08-22 16:53
---
Excuse me, but I do not understand what makes this code invalid. Could anybody
explain? If so, does this apply to all the test cases given (also for bugs that
are marked as duplicates of this bug)?
--
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-08-13 16:17 ---
Confirmed.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-13 20:37
---
Even shorter testcase:
==
struct A {};
template int A::* p
int foo(A* q)
{
return q-*p;
}
template typename T
int bar(int T::* p)
{
return foop(0);
}
int i = barA(0);
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-13 20:57
---
*** Bug 36789 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-13 20:59
---
*** Bug 36776 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37093
19 matches
Mail list logo
