http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #19 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-11
13:21:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25796
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25796
Patch with corrections.
ChangeLog:
2011-11-11 Ed Smith-Rowland
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-11
16:51:50 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Nov 11 16:51:41 2011
New Revision: 181292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181292
Log:
PR c++/50976
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #17 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-10
15:53:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 25785
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25785
Potentail patch #2a.
Here's a version of the second patch that actually
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill jason at redhat dot com 2011-11-10
19:07:44 UTC ---
On 11/10/2011 10:53 AM, 3dw4rd at verizon dot net wrote:
Potentail patch #2a.
+ t = TREE_VALUE (argtype);
+ if (!argtype)
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #14 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-09
20:21:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 25774
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25774
Potential patch #1
I'll regtest this trivial patch when I get home.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #15 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-09
20:23:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 25775
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25775
Potential patch #2
A different choice. If I find a string, explicitly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-09
21:53:19 UTC ---
I like the approach of #2, but it looks like that patch doesn't limit raw
operators to char*, but allows other character types as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-03
11:49:46 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this error.
I have test cases in the tree that look exactly like this.
Look at udlit-args.C. Grep long long in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-03 12:03:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 25701
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25701
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-03 12:05:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Could it be that there is a 'templatechar...' just above the declaration?
Literal operator templates must have void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-03
12:47:41 UTC ---
I wonder if the testsuite was run when the gcc was built.
It should have raised a boatload of flags there.
Your test case runs like a charm on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-03
12:54:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Your test case runs like a charm on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
I can confirm that, using the 4.7-20111029 snapshot
I can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-03 13:04:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
gcc version 4.7.0 20111031 (experimental) (GCC)
This difference shouldn't be essential, should it?
I wonder if the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-03 13:06:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
gcc version 4.7.0 20111031 (experimental) (GCC)
This difference shouldn't be essential,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-03
13:23:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
http://www.equation.com/servlet/equation.cmd?fa=fortran
That page implies those binaries contain some source modifications, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-03
13:47:15 UTC ---
This may well happen if perhaps 'unsigned long long int' doesn't map to
long_long_unsigned_type_node for this target.
Daniel, just for fun, and as a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-03 13:58:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I just send a corresponding email to the support address of this page. In
addition I removed my previous gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-03 19:44:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I can't imagine how this could be target dependent though.
I have a bit more information now: If I'm using the 32-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-03
21:05:37 UTC ---
It could well be a mingw-w64 problem (there are two separate projects mingw and
mingw-w64 - http://mingw-w64.sourceforge.net/ you want the latter). I
21 matches
Mail list logo
