https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #60 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Dec 24 13:01:04 2018
New Revision: 267407
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267407=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix libstdc++/64883 for Darwin.
2018-12-24 Iain Sandoe
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #59 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat Dec 22 17:50:45 2018
New Revision: 267352
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267352=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR libstdc++/64883.
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #58 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Dec 6 19:21:32 2018
New Revision: 266863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266863=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix PR libstdc++/64883 Darwin headers use always_inline so don't test that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #57 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks good to me.
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #56)
> a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++2011/all_attributes.cc
> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++2011/all_attributes.cc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #56 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #55)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #54)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #53)
> > > well, the point was that we can file a bug/radar against
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #55 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #54)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #53)
> > well, the point was that we can file a bug/radar against current system
> > headers using things outside the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #54 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #53)
> well, the point was that we can file a bug/radar against current system
> headers using things outside the implementation space, but that won't fix
> things
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #53 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #52)
> I'm not even sure we should fixinclude the darwin headers. If darwin wants
> to ship headers that prevent users from defining the non-reserved attribute
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #52 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not even sure we should fixinclude the darwin headers. If darwin wants to
ship headers that prevent users from defining the non-reserved attribute names
as macros, that's darwin's business.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #51 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think any documentation change is needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #49)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #48)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #47)
> > > Can the bug be marked as resolved?
> >
> > Reading back through
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #49 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #48 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #47)
> Can the bug be marked as resolved?
Reading back through the comments, I think that work-arounds were done, but
AFAIK neither manual updates, nor fixincludes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #46 from nightstrike ---
Test now passes on mingw-w64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #45 from nightstrike ---
Testing these now:
https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/ci/466ef13e8468636e76a80342c6c0ee9e4c17bca3/
https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/ci/edd8fa8648ae04a2f63d92498abeccffbfd0ba1f/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #44 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or my view on what our tests should do have "evolved" (i.e. completely
contradicted my old view!)
If mingw says that isn't a valid program or simply can't support it for valid
reasons, then the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #43 from nightstrike ---
Jon,
I was referring to your Comment 9:
The failing test is only intended to check that libstdc++ is consistent about
using the uglified attributes. Anything outside libstdc++ can do whatever it
wants.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #42 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #41)
> It seems to me that the test itself is a bit overzealous. If the intent is
> to ensure just that libstdc++ sources don't use certain words, well that's
> not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jon_y at users dot
sourceforge.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #40 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 38295
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38295=edit
Further tweak for Darwin10
Sorry, this one slipped thorough the cracks, and I guess we're no longer in the
"apply as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Please create a PR for the experimental/filesystem FAILs, they're almost
> certainly all due to a single error.
PR70694.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #38 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please create a PR for the experimental/filesystem FAILs, they're almost
certainly all due to a single error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #37 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Still present at revision r235031 with more failures, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg01541.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|redi at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #35 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #34)
.. will apply an incremental change for earlier darwin as obvious at the
first available opportunity (unless anyone has an objection) …
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #33)
Changed the summary to x86_64-apple-darwin10 (this probably affects
powerpc-apple-darwin9 also).
correct; there is one additional
29 matches
Mail list logo
