http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-05
18:09:08 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 5 18:08:56 2012
New Revision: 184946
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184946
Log:
PR c++/51930
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-01
17:52:18 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 1 17:52:12 2012
New Revision: 184753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184753
Log:
PR c++/51930
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-01
20:53:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
It is clear that the behavior is not equivalent. The warning before was
conditional on -Wattributes, but now it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #14 from Philipp s...@s-e-f-i.de 2012-02-27 11:06:20 UTC ---
The new behaviour makes it pretty much impossible for me to retain the
visibility gcc has been giving me with the old behaviour.
It is impossible to only give every type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27
14:56:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
The new behaviour makes it pretty much impossible for me to retain the
visibility gcc has been giving me with the old behaviour.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27
15:07:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
#pragma GCC visibility push(default)
#include_next foo.h
#pragma GCC visibility push
Oops, should be pop, obviously
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-16
08:23:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
But think about a header only library. My test case isn't that far fetched. A
simple struct with no member functions (except for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #7 from Philipp s...@s-e-f-i.de 2012-02-15 09:29:27 UTC ---
The test struct might come from an external library I have no control of, which
will make it difficult to change its visibility. Currently, I have quite some
code that depends
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-15
10:15:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The test struct might come from an external library I have no control of,
which
will make it difficult to change its visibility.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-15
10:53:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
You could declare the struct before including that library's headers and set
its visibility with a pragma:
#pragma GCC visibility
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #10 from Philipp s...@s-e-f-i.de 2012-02-15 12:02:09 UTC ---
But think about a header only library. My test case isn't that far fetched. A
simple struct with no member functions (except for the implicitly generated
ones) should need no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-15
13:50:07 UTC ---
(... wouldn't it be better to fix it? should read ... to change it?,
otherwise you are begging the question, eh)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-15
01:22:43 UTC ---
The problem here is that there is currently no way to add attributes to a class
template instantiation; on the explicit instantiation in your testcase the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Philipp s...@s-e-f-i.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23
20:48:35 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 23 20:48:31 2012
New Revision: 183455
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183455
Log:
PR c++/51930
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
22 matches
Mail list logo
