--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-17 22:41
---
Not a regression means that as far as we know no previous release worked, it's
a long standing issue (as you can see gcc4.1.2 already failed). Thus, in
general, at this Stage in the release process toward
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-17 22:47
---
*** Bug 42784 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 2010-01-18 02:37
---
*** Bug 42738 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 02:37
---
I'm resolving this as duplicate of the first nested lambdas PR which came in, I
don't think there is anything more here.
Jason, if you disagree, please take care of re-opening, thanks.
*** This bug has been
--- Comment #28 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-16 10:10
---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 14:06
---
This is just crazy, inside the debugger works fine. Outside -fsyntax-only is
enough, -E is not. Richard any idea what the heck is going on?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 14:24
---
Yes, it can, thanks again for the quick turnaround.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 14:35
---
Let's add Jakub in CC, he knows the implementation very well. In case, please
keep also in touch privately.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 15:18
---
Thanks Michael. It's a serious regression, isn't it?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
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=42761
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Priority|P3 |P1
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 20:25
---
Thanks Jason! If we manage to solve this tough problem, then I know how to
enable also the volatile / const volatile call operators + other improvements
bringing us real close to the WP.
--
http
--- Comment #22 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 22:15
---
(In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #18)
Just build everything with default configure options, then go inside the
libstdc++-v3 *build* dir and type 'make check'.
Ah, hmm. Well, having
--- Comment #24 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 23:07
---
(In reply to comment #23)
What we want to do is to run the libstdc++ testsuite with my
distribution-provided g++, in order to see whether it's generally broken or
not, right?
Wrong. You can't use one
--- Comment #26 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-16 00:05
---
Hey, I'm telling you the way we all library maintainers (like me) and users
check the library: they all fetch everything (either mainline or 4_4-branch, or
whatever) via svn, make, make check. Now you want
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 11:13
---
Does it matter that lambdas with no-capture are special, per n2989? (also see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01690.html)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42737
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 14:25
---
Please provide all the required information, in particular the preprocessed
file that triggers the bug (after having checked that current 4_4-branch is
still affected, of course):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 16:34
---
PR42634 is fixed, we can safely close this one too.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 17:23
---
It seems to me extremely unlikely that an implementation decides to provide the
full-const version when called by a c++ compiler and nothing else, because C++
does *not* add an overload, *replaces both*. Thus
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 18:26
---
Mark, can you have a look to this issue, thanks!
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 20:31
---
Indeed. Matthias filed the PR and then I only changed the Summary to better
clarify that the point is simply not warning, *ever*, in system headers. Nice
that you agree about that analysis of mine
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 20:44
---
Yes, I agree, in the light of the resolution of DR456, let's keep open 33935
instead, and clarify in it that non-GNU targets have yet to provide a mechanism
similar to the one used in recent glibcs
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 20:47
---
Let's keep this one open instead, as a reminder that the libcs of non-GNU
targets have to provide a mechanism similar to the one used by recent glibcs:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 02:00
---
Just build everything with default configure options, then go inside the
libstdc++-v3 *build* dir and type 'make check'.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 02:02
---
(we are not particularly interested in the g++ testresults, that this the
results for the C++ front-end proper, we are interested in the library results)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-15 02:05
---
Normally should look, for your i686 target, like the final part of this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-01/msg01263.html
(please disregard the 23_containers failures, it's a temporary problem
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 18:07
---
This is ok in the current release branches.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 18:49
---
In your sources you will find it named atomicity.h. But really, please try
again with a maintained compiler, preferably 4.4.x, and in case report back,
thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 18:56
---
It's resolved as WORKSFORME not as in all possible circumstances, with all
possible compilers and libraries that we delivered in the past and we deliver
now and all the possible CPUs and underlying glibcs
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 20:34
---
Maybe, but pthread_atfork isn't part of GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42733
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 20:40
---
I cannot reproduce the problem in current 4_4-branch and mainline. Jon does it
make any sense to you?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 21:42
---
If you have serious reasons to believe that GCC may be using pthreads in the
wrong way in its thin gthreads wrapper, please file a PR about that, with a
testcase. The component of course would not be libstdc
--- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 22:21
---
Ok, for now let's close this as WONTFIX. At your ease, Jon, it would be nice if
you could add the # of the reflector message where you raised the issue...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 22:39
---
But note that I can't reproduce it on x86_64 and -m32
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 22:40
---
-m64 (the default) is also fine, of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-13 23:09
---
Before anything else, you should make sure your system is otherwise sane, I
don't know Linux nuty and I have no idea if it's affected by specific issues.
Thus, first, I would suggest you to run the testsuite
--- Comment #15 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-14 01:58
---
(In reply to comment #14)
Believe it or not, nuty is actually the hostname of the system in question.
;)
The distribution is Arch Linux.
Believe it or not, I don't know Arch Linux either ;)
--
http
--- Comment #20 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 10:53
---
(In reply to comment #19)
I think this bug could be closed now, any objections?
Not from me, I agree it can be closed. I'd like only to make sure we don't
forget about the issue with pointers to member
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|bisqwit at iki dot fi |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 11:54
---
Thanks. If you could do your best to figure out something small and self
contained it would be great, otherwise we lack anyway something to add to the
testsuite.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 12:49
---
As usual, please reduce these beasts...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 12:50
---
Yes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42697
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 12:59
---
If it's unimplemented, it's unimplemented, the issue is obviously known.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 13:11
---
No, in this case it's just a diagnostic telling you that the function cannot be
inlined by the optimizers, there is nothing in the Standard about that, and it
can well be that for some reason (there are many
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42679
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=42712
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 18:00
---
My impression is that for some reason it's just slow, very slow: with
TEST_DEPTH=10 it completes in a decent amount of time...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42712
--- Comment #22 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 18:07
---
Interesting... lately people (*) are apparently happy with all sorts of
regressions wrt C++98/TR1...
Anyway, then let's close it, actually I leave to you the choice between fixed,
wontfix and invalid
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 23:33
---
Since we are talking of etiquette, and with the obvious caveats that my mother
language is italian + all the caveats about metaphorical uses of language, I
would also suggest keeping to a minimum the uses
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-11 20:59
---
Mainline is fine.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-10 10:42
---
At the very minimum we need a small reproducer.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-10 12:16
---
I don't know what you mean exactly by official, but certainly disabling the
build of the PCHs cannot hurt and cannot create any problem, beside the
testsuite running slower. Then, if you actually use PCHs
--- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-10 12:17
---
I don't know what you mean exactly by official, but certainly disabling the
build of the PCHs cannot hurt and cannot create any problem, beside the
testsuite running slower. Then, if you actually use PCHs
--- Comment #15 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-10 13:46
---
Jon, what do you think, shall we go ahead?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42593
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-10 14:21
---
great ;) Of course I also wonder what is different in stand alone testing...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42639
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-10 19:18
---
Well, these are two interesting data points: 1- The crash definitely is not
new, happens also with 4.2.4; 2- The same 4.4.x library, but ICC as C++
compiler, doesn't crash, maybe it's a random behavior, sure
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 09:59
---
Didn't I tell you already that these issues are *not* suited for Bugzilla,
because aren't user visible? Just mention the issue on gcc, or send a patch to
gcc-patches.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 10:19
---
c++filt is part of binutils and indeed the PR is about binutils, thus doesn't
belong here. If you have strong reasons to believe GCC is at fault, please
explain and reopen.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 19:07
---
Oops, sorry, I stand corrected, needed some sleep... indeed, that reminds me...
other/42230 !! ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42670
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 19:08
---
Maybe HJ is interested...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 19:15
---
This is intended. If you want to enforce that check use _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC
additionally (the docs describe also the pedantic mode). And... always keep in
mind that this is *free software* and our sources
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 20:51
---
I have in front of me the documentation in cxxabi.h and something like the
below should pass, AFAICS:
#include cxxabi.h
#include cassert
#include cstddef
int main()
{
std::size_t length = 0;
int cc
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 20:53
---
Well, Dodji, I just run make check-performance inside the build dir of the
library (note, must be done after make check, there is nit in the Makefile, a
missing dependency or something) and for sure it still
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 21:04
---
Doesn't pass for me. I don't have a special setup, a current, widespread
desktop Linux system.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42230
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 21:29
---
Thanks. The change would be also fully consistent with cplus_demangle_print. If
regtesting is fine it almost qualifies as trivial, I would say... HJ, are you
willing to prepare and test a complete patch
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-09 22:56
---
I understand this can be closed as invalid, then.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-10 01:39
---
Fixed for 4.5.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 10:29
---
Good joke and also good point Jon: I still believe that our C++0x user
interfaces, even not considering the semantics, aren't yet such complete and
otherwise perfect to grant that action, but all in all
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 10:46
---
Ok, Jon, you convinced me: I'll add the interfaces, and a very, very basic
implementation for vector and deque for now, I think just do something for PODs
(reminder to ourselves, change the dispatches
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 13:06
---
Done (within the limits explained in the audit trail).
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 15:42
---
Note: the same problem with the DefaultConstructible requirement affects for
example the new constructor vector(size_type). Thinking more about these issues
I'm wondering whether in N3000 std::vector co
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 18:47
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 16006 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 18:47
---
*** Bug 39243 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 19:12
---
I'm trusting Jon here: in the audi trail of PR41174 he mentioned that this
issue depends on the resolution of Core issue 475 (currently in drafting):
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 19:12
---
Suspending, waiting for [Ready].
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 19:14
---
I'm asking Rth to have a look to this one, apparently unrelated to DR Core 475.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-07 16:42
---
Ok, let's re-open this and add the basic implementation in time for gcc4.5
(C++0x mode only of course).
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--
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 #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-07 16:52
---
3.4.6?!? Please, try current, maintained, releases, gcc4.3.x or, better,
gcc4.4.x, and in case open an appropriate PR. Thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-07 17:02
---
Yes, but it's totally unmaintained, I'm sorry, we don't get PRs for
unmaintained branches, that's the policy.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-07 23:17
---
Nope... I went through this and came to the conclusion that a fairly good
implementation has to wait for a complete resolution of N2983: the request is
non-binding thus if the move constructor can throw
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-08 00:00
---
I'm sorry, the information you provided is largely insufficient to analyze the
problem. Please follow the guidelines here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
Also, gcc3.3.x is very old and no longer maintained
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-06 11:41
---
Done both.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42460
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-06 11:42
---
Loren, we are not making much progress on this... ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10251
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-06 11:57
---
Now the buffer is 128 chars.
On second thought, I don't think checking the return value of strftime and all
the added complexity are worth the trouble: given the semantics of the function
and the actual data
--- Comment #24 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-06 16:37
---
As I understand the audit trail, this can be closed. If somebody has solid
reasons to disagree, please re-open.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-06 16:39
---
Ok, thanks. Can you summarize the present status, then? Outstanding issues,
maybe more patchlets... ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42460
--
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 #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-06 23:45
---
Thanks a lot!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42491
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-07 00:33
---
Fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
ReportedBy: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-05 19:22
---
The best we can do is asking the attention of Johannes...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-05 20:10
---
Fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-04 09:47
---
Let's CC Jason...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-04 10:30
---
For sure Jon the code is very, very clean, excellent.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42593
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 12:47
---
Thanks Daniel. Jon, can you have a look? I verified that the tr1 code we were
using in 4.4.x and before is fine, thus should be either the std::function
changes vs rvalue references or, less likely I believe
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-03 14:26
---
Thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
901 - 1000 of 2536 matches
Mail list logo
