--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 15:10
---
Ok, Jon, thanks. At some point, however, *soon* I'm afraid given the gcc4.5
schedule, we'll have to make a tough choice: if updating only std::function
leads to bad regressions in common usages of std::bind
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 16:03
---
Jon, I'm raising Priority and Severity not because the isssue per se is that
deadly serious (after all the whole C++0x is experimental, nothing should be
really critical about it), but because we want to make
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 16:34
---
Let's keep a P1 for now, we really don't want to forget.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 18:05
---
Great. Let's go ahead this way, then!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42593
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 20:57
---
By the way, Jon, I don't think we should delay committing this work only
because of DR 817, after all isn't even Ready...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42593
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 21:02
---
... if we have something rather satisfactory wrt all the other isses /
testcases we are aware of in this area the sooner we commit the code, the
better: I'm sure that Daniel can help testing it further on his
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-04 02:21
---
This behavior changed as response to libstdc++/37958, I spent way to much time
on it, Daniel, believe me ;) Anyway, as an additional data point, SunStudio
also agrees with current libstdc++.
--
paolo dot
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 10:14
---
(In reply to comment #18)
It does happen when swapping arrays. I believe that array::swap does have a
strong requirement via 23.2.1 p 10, but have xfailed this for the moment.
In that case we have clearly
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 10:46
---
... I meant, still copy constructor, copy assignment, etc, can't throw ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 11:03
---
In the meanwhile, I double checked N3000 for basic_string: any literal type
will be allowed, thus if we want to use this type of framework for C++0x we
have first to make sure that the types conform
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 13:08
---
At this point, I don't think we are going to do anything in the 4_3-branch...
otherwise, please remember to adjust the milestone.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 13:08
---
Fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 13:09
---
Same here...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 17:08
---
Yeah, *a lot* of C++0x things are missing, or still incorrectly implemented, in
general we are not tracking in Bugzilla each!
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 17:15
---
Current release branch and mainline give:
.../stl_pair.h:88: warning: in call to std::pair_T1, _T2::pair(_U1,
_U2) [with _U1 = double, _U2 = std::initializer_listint, _T1 = float, _T2 =
std::vectorint, std
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-01 17:17
---
Oops, the warning message begins like this:
42572.cc: In function int main():
42572.cc:6: warning: deducing _U2 as std::initializer_listint
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42572
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-02 03:06
---
I'm working on this, and I want to make sure we agree about the third case. As
I understand the Standard, the expected is 1, not -1, that is, I don't see
anything wrong with parsing Pndedelnik as Pnd followed
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-31 11:57
---
*** Bug 42563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-31 11:57
---
A very old issue. In general, before filing in Bugzilla, do a search, and in
any case never file issues vs old unmaintained release branches, thanks.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27102
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-30 10:54
---
Done.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-30 12:51
---
*** Bug 42552 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-30 12:51
---
If you are looking for a totally unsupported (can go away at any moment)
workaround (it's a bug that it does what you want), see PR11705
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37557 ***
--
paolo
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-29 10:56
---
After so many years since that idea, we are not interested in squeezing more
from that interesting (but outdated) idea of simulating concept checks in the
library. Long term, we want proper concept checks
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-29 13:11
---
Yes, I think can then go in as obvious. Actually, in my opinion, this kind of
issue with zero impact on the end-user experience, should go *only* to
gcc-patches, are not suitable for Bugzilla.
--
paolo dot
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-29 15:05
---
This doesn't crash in mainline, and I'm pretty sure Jason doesn't mean to fix
this kind of problem in 4_4-branch at this late time in the branch. I'm Cc-ing
him, anyway, because in mainline the first two
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-29 15:08
---
Ah, ok, read the other message in the audit trail, we can close this.
Do you have a copyright assignment on file? In that case, your contribution is
certainly welcome, please send your implementation
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-30 01:21
---
Matthias, please apply your doc patchlet, thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42460
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-30 01:25
---
Done (I'm trusting you blindly)
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-30 02:01
---
Matthias, sorry, please apply only the first hunk, I'm applying momentarily the
patch from Ed fixing the second issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42460
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-28 10:35
---
Ok. If you are stumbling again on exactly the same issue, please re-open,
otherwise file a new one... But hopefully everything will be fine ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35421
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-28 10:37
---
Good. To clarify, I have no personal objections to that specific kind of
backport to 4_4-branch... seems a bit late, but still, since the basic issue is
a wrong-code... up to the maintainers.
--
http
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 11:59
---
Yes, unless Matthias has a good explanation and fix for what's going on, those
changes should be immediately reverted, I will do that anyway in 3-4 days max.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 12:18
---
Note, however, that something is definitely wrong in the analysis: PR40133 and
PR40134 have been fixed **only in mainline**, thus per se those changes cannot
be involved in a breakage involving 4_4-branch
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 12:29
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42507 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 12:29
---
*** Bug 42515 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42507
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 14:41
---
Thus you mean only 40134 is involved. Because 40133 *assumes* that on the
relevant linux targets there are no surprises with shared vs static libgcc.
In general, I want to make sure nothing changes
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 11:03
---
I understand can be closed as fixed now.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 12:38
---
Has been fixed a lot of time ago.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 12:43
---
Works in mainline, not a regression, closing.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 12:47
---
Fixed a lot of time ago.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 13:52
---
Will not be fixed in 4_3-branch.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 13:53
---
Will not be fixed in 4_3-branch.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 13:57
---
Works fine in mainline indeed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 14:04
---
Please provide a self-contained .ii, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#report
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42355
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 14:06
---
Also, please do your best to minimize it, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42355
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 14:20
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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 #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 14:32
---
Yes, fixed long time ago.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 14:38
---
Fixed a long time ago.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 18:20
---
The error message is fine in the released 4.4.0, not a regression, closing.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 18:23
---
No feedback for 20 months, closing. CC-ing David in case he wants to add
something...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 18:31
---
Let's CC Jason about this (frankly, I have *always* used double parentheses, I
thought that was the only legal syntax ;)
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 18:36
---
Will not be fixed in 4_3-branch.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 18:43
---
This is definitely invalid. The linkage isn't weak, and you get exactly into
the same problem of a plain:
struct u
{
static int const v;
};
int const u::v = 42;
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 18:50
---
Yes, this is exactly what the Standard says, see 27.3/2, the behavior changed,
we are more conforming lately.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 19:03
---
Jakub, I guess we can close this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39554
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 19:10
---
I find this disturbing. Let's CC Jason...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 19:12
---
Maybe related to c++/36625 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40821
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 19:13
---
Maybe related to c++/40821 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36625
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 19:16
---
Dodji, can we close this one at this point?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39987
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 19:19
---
Fix (by Jason, I think) in mainline, not a regression, closing.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37260
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33492
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40749
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 22:27
---
Not a regression, works in current release branch and mainline. Closing.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-26 22:40
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 01:47
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 01:54
---
Fixed for 4.5.0, not a regression, closing as fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 09:47
---
This is not the proper place for academic discussions, definitely. If you are
not convinced, try Comeau, or SunStudio, or ICC in strict mode.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 09:50
---
Yes, in C++03 (C++0x will be different), a constructor cannot call *another
constructor*.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42472
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 09:53
---
As Jason confirmed, this is not a regression, thus, post 4.5.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 10:48
---
If I were you, I would not use this kind of C++ at all, for the time being. As
we discussed already, it's *very* weakly supported and your software would not
be portable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 11:06
---
Then wait, good luck
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 22:11
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Known to fail||4.4.2
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 22:17
---
Works in mainline, not a regression, thus closing as fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 22:21
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 22:23
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 22:25
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 22:26
---
Looks like can be closed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-24 15:39
---
Try this one:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#329
Anyway, if you could point us to the specific sentence in the thread saying
that it's legal, it would be useful. And, well
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42491
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-24 21:55
---
Cool. Should the testcase use dg-do link?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-23 22:59
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38600 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-23 22:59
---
*** Bug 36236 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-23 23:00
---
Dodji, is this just a duplicate of PR38600?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40044
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 09:58
---
Ralf, is this information enough to debug the issue?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40974
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 10:02
---
Relevant DR reopened:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~hinnant/issue_review/lwg-active.html#579
Next, we should provide detailed wording...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 10:04
---
I think Jon can take this, for the std::future work.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 10:09
---
I think this PR can be closed: if the program doesn't change the global locale
the mutex is not used anymore, is only incremented a reference count. As an
enhancement we can do better, indeed, but the issues
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 10:23
---
Recently, the DR has been closed as NAD:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#382
Given that, I see no reason to keep this PR open, because we are not going to
change a very old
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 10:24
---
Recently, the DR has been closed as NAD:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#309
Given that, I see no reason to keep this PR open, because we are not going to
change within
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 14:07
---
Fine.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 14:16
---
Long term, I would suggest staying away from these extensions, and try to write
portable code...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42462
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-22 15:03
---
I don't think this is a translation issue, just a typo in the params.def
string.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42463
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |paolo dot carlini at oracle
|dot org
1001 - 1100 of 2536 matches
Mail list logo
