https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No problem, now that Richard raised it on the core reflector we should see the
implementation divergence fixed, which is a Good Thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #18 from David Blaikie ---
Thanks - looks like this got hashed out on the C++ reflector in favor of this
being invalid. The Clang bug has been re-opened to work on the fix there.
Thanks! Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Blaikie from comment #15)
> "The compiler still reuses the same representation for const/volatile and
> for some attributes, sometimes misinterpreting one for the other." - sounds
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's not valid.
[expr.typeid] p5 says typeid(cv T) is the same as typeid(T) but that isn't
relevant here. 'void () const' is not the cv-qualified version of 'void ()',
because there are no cv-qualified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
David Blaikie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dblaikie at gmail dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.1 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.7.1
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #8 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-10
20:34:26 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Oct 10 20:34:20 2011
New Revision: 179772
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179772
Log:
PR c++/48665
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-10
21:37:40 UTC ---
Time to make serious progress on the rest ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2011-10-10 04:19:03
UTC ---
Created attachment 25451
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25451
Possible patch
It's mainly a matter of style, but this is the approach I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-10-10
05:55:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It's mainly a matter of style, but this is the approach I prefer.
Thanks, it looks nicer indeed :-)
Would you care to commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-09-06
21:11:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 25210
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25210
Fix libiberty demangler
This patch seems to fix c++filt. It doesn't
20 matches
Mail list logo
