--- Comment #27 from d dot frey at gmx dot de 2009-03-16 19:08 ---
Thanks Paolo. I've opened PR c++/39475 for the type traits intrinsics.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39405
--- Comment #22 from d dot frey at gmx dot de 2009-03-14 08:52 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Now I think I know the conservative way we want to go for the branch: just
change shared_ptr::operator* to always use something with the same semantics
of std::tr1::add_reference. For
--- Comment #23 from d dot frey at gmx dot de 2009-03-14 08:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=17463)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17463action=view)
show inconsistency with is_abstract
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39405
--- Comment #24 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-14 12:06
---
I agree with your analysis. Can you please open a separate PR about
__is_abstract (which would be a C++ report): currently, we are trying to
complete the types, but we do not error out in case of
--- Comment #25 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-15 00:44 ---
Subject: Bug 39405
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Mar 15 00:43:46 2009
New Revision: 144867
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144867
Log:
2009-03-14 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
PR
--- Comment #26 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-15 00:54
---
This specific issue is fixed in 4_3-branch.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #14 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-13 15:02 ---
Subject: Bug 39405
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Mar 13 15:01:50 2009
New Revision: 144839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144839
Log:
2009-03-13 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
PR
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |paolo dot carlini at oracle
|dot org
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-13 15:17
---
I can confirm this is a regression on the branch. As this is with -std=gnu++0x
only it does not qualify for P1 IMHO. Still it would of course be nice to
have a fix (that does not risk to regress elsewhere of
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-13 16:02
---
Note, just tweaking is_function like this, doesn't completely fix the issue for
me, only the reduced testcase using is_abstract...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39405
--- Comment #17 from d dot frey at gmx dot de 2009-03-13 16:41 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Note, just tweaking is_function like this, doesn't completely fix the issue
for
me, only the reduced testcase using is_abstract...
And actually I don't even understand why it works even in
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-13 16:54
---
This is going out of control ;) What do you think about committing to the
branch something like the patch which I'm going to attach now? Probably we can
decouple the C++ issue...
--
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-13 16:54
---
Created an attachment (id=17460)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17460action=view)
draft for 4_3-branch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39405
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-13 17:37
---
unfortunately, there are interactions with libstdc++/39310... I'm going to ping
a resolution in mainline of the latter.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39405
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-03-13 18:32
---
Now I think I know the conservative way we want to go for the branch: just
change shared_ptr::operator* to always use something with the same semantics
of std::tr1::add_reference. For mainline, we'll see if
16 matches
Mail list logo
