--- Comment #22 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 04:54 ---
Fixed for 4.6.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:55 ---
Subject: Bug 38392
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:54:42 2010
New Revision: 158073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158073
Log:
PR c++/38392
* pt.c (tsubst_friend_function):
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 09:53
---
As Jason confirmed, this is not a regression, thus, post 4.5.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #17 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-25 10:42
---
Ok I managed to compile GCC 4.5, applied the patch and compiled the test code
above and everything works fine. Thanks again!
And yes, I imagined it would have been post 4.5 but I meant 'when' from a time
frame
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 10:48
---
If I were you, I would not use this kind of C++ at all, for the time being. As
we discussed already, it's *very* weakly supported and your software would not
be portable.
--
--- Comment #19 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-25 11:02
---
Yeah I know, but consider that I used this code only in a specific circumstance
and does not constitute a core part of my application (or a foundation of some
higher level mechanism). And I know it's a lot
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 11:06
---
Then wait, good luck
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #9 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-24 14:48
---
I know if you move the function it links (btw your link asks me for an HTTP
login), but if you follow the discussion in the newsgroup it was concluded that
this (the above) is actually perfectly valid standard
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-24 15:39
---
Try this one:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#329
Anyway, if you could point us to the specific sentence in the thread saying
that it's legal, it would be useful. And, well,
--- Comment #11 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-24 17:23
---
This is possibly the part in which gets confirmed that the code is standard
compliant, although it reports the exact same paragraph you linked (the old
version):
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 21:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=19387)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19387action=view)
patch
Here's a fix. I'm going to hold off on applying it for now since it isn't a
regression.
--
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-24 21:55
---
Cool. Should the testcase use dg-do link?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 22:14 ---
Ah, good point. I've updated the patch accordingly in my local pre-4.6 git
branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #15 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-24 22:15
---
Hey thank you! I'd like to test the patch if I only I'd be able to compile 4.5
successfully. You have any idea on when could this patch make it to a final
release?
--
--- Comment #8 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-23 11:02 ---
See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/prot/14882fdis/cwg_defects.html#329
I believe a use of the function must come after the definition for it to be
instantiated, indeed if I add this after the explicit
--- Comment #6 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-22 21:52
---
Did anyone try this against 4.5? Considering that at this stage only bugfixes
are accepted in the codebase for the next release I'd really like to see a
possible fix to this in. I tried to compile GCC 4.5 on my
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 22:15
---
Doesn't link with 4.5.0. And doesn't link with ICC and SunStudio either, thus,
I'm rather skeptical it should. I also skimmed quickly through the discussion
on comp.lang.c++ and didn't notice any neat
--- Comment #5 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-09-15 07:37
---
Any update about this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #3 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-01-31 20:28
---
Sorry for the late reply!
I thought I'd receive an e-mail when one of my reports gets updated, silly me.
Yes I know it works if you switch the order, but that's exactly the point of
the code, to have them in
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-02-01 05:07 ---
Confirmed indeed, with this (linker) error message:
g/x c++ x.cc
/tmp/ccjPvb3J.o: In function `main':
x.cc:(.text+0x12): undefined reference to `Function()'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
This already fails with
--- Comment #1 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2008-12-16 01:03
---
Any news?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-16 01:08 ---
Confirmed, not a regression. If you swap around main and the template, the
link works correctly.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
25 matches
Mail list logo
