--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-16 09:41 ---
Thanks. This isn't a regression, I'm going to apply your patch to mainline and
4_2-branch only.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 09:07 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33035
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 09:14 ---
So the problem is already fixed in all the active branches. Thanks, anyway!
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 11:22 ---
Cannot be reproduced anymore in mainline, likely because of 33035.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 12:35 ---
working on it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 15:25 ---
This is a duplicate of 33035 and indeed the latter isn't a regression, I'm
fixing that.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33035 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 15:25 ---
*** Bug 31516 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 16:37 ---
Feedback not forthcoming...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-15 17:07 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-14 10:04 ---
Apparently this is fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-14 19:25 ---
The issue in Comment #3 has long been fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-14 22:16 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-14 22:29 ---
Yes, I can confirm this. The issue seems simple: at that line we are wrongly
calling TYPE_CONTEXT on a FUNCTION_DECL. In such circumstances the solution
normally adopted elsewhere is that in the draft, which in fact appear
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-14 22:32 ---
For some reason, I can't attach the patch, here it is, anyway:
Index: pt.c
===
*** pt.c(revision 127493)
--- pt.c(working copy
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-13 16:51 ---
First comment: std::tr1::tgamma just forwards to __builtin_tgamma, therefore,
*if* we have an issue is with the middle-end, not with the library. Stay tuned.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33060
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-13 17:00 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The implementation of std::tr1::tgamma looks wrong to me.
Keep in mind that the gamma function is equal to the factorial function for
integer values.
Now I see: this statement is incorrect
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-13 19:04 ---
Working on it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-12 19:11 ---
Working on it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-10 09:51 ---
Seems manageable...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #21 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-10 18:06 ---
Fixed for 4.1.3.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #17 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-10 12:28 ---
Working on the spurious space issue...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-10 08:57 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-10 15:15 ---
Yes.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33021
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-08 09:18 ---
I was about to reply the same as Andrew's... Mainline is also ok, by the way.
I'm afraid this will end up being a WONTFIX in 4_1-branch because there are
zero chances that those fixes will be backported to the branch
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-06 09:13 ---
Yes, the standard is clear that array of unknown bound of T and array of N of T
are different types. And we are all implementing the is_array trait with 2
specializations (Vandevoorde and Josuttis included in their book
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-06 09:19 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-06 11:52 ---
The subtle issue here is that this specific error message should be emitted
*only* when the incorrectly specified return type doesn't match, thus a plain
error instead of a pedwarn:
case sfk_conversion:
if (type
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-31 12:37 ---
The compiler is right: operator+ returns a *temporary* CString and you have an
assignment operator taking a *non const* reference. Just change the latter to
take a const reference.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-30 15:39 ---
Fixed for 4.2.2.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rakdver at kam dot mff dot |
|cuni dot cz |
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-29 15:21 ---
Ok, Zdenek, thanks a lot anyway...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32908
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-28 07:38 ---
Hi Chris. Sure, I can work on this, no big deal, otherwise, I'll let you know,
thanks. Before starting on that, however, I would be curious to hear from
Zdenek: is there something that could be done in the loop optimizer
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-27 09:26 ---
Note that we are talking about one of the *legacy*, extension, HP/SGI
containers: those in general are only minimally maintained these days because
standard replacements are being prepared for C++0x and already available
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-27 17:14 ---
... actually, if you are on a 32-bit machine, your code is invalid, because
ostream::write takes a streamsize as second argument, which is a ptrdiff_t.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32916
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-27 17:25 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-27 17:08 ---
We badly need more information about your system and a tescase easier to use:
you are allocating on the heap more than 2GB at once! Anyway, actually only
4.1.2 has large file support on selected, linux, platforms, which
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-27 18:43 ---
then, assuming everything is ok, you have enough memory, etc, your code works,
something is wrong with your specific system and we need more details.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32916
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-27 19:23 ---
In any case, just tried your specific testcode on an up to date x86_64-linux
machine and the problem cannot be reproduced. Make sure the system where you
are trying to install the 4.1.x compiler is up to date as regards
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-26 19:35 ---
Well, in our current, C++03, implementation, definitely list::size is O(N). The
issue is thorny, as you know well. For C++0x, Howard has a proposal related to
the additional splice overload, I'm not sure which
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-25 14:46 ---
Cannot be reproduced anymore.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #15 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-25 21:56 ---
By the way, s390x-linux apparently is also affected...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32878
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-24 09:20 ---
Fixed for 4.2.2.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-24 11:09 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-24 11:09 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-24 15:00 ---
I think there is no reason to categorize as libstdc++: almost nothing changed
in the library in that timespan (and definitely nothing related) and, AFAICS,
all the other targets are fine. Also, I would suggest adding
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-24 16:54 ---
This code is invalid, as Carl Barron, Greg Herlihy and others explained very
carefully in that thread.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedoc|
|s/libstdc++/ext/pb_ds/hash_b
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedoc|
|s/libstdc++/ext/pb_ds/hash_b
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-16 17:01 ---
I bet you are doing again something I noticed before, and is *totally*
unsupported: using the 4_2 library sources together with a 4_3 compiler-proper
sources or viceversa. You cannot do that, because, just as an example
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-14 23:51 ---
I advice against committing anything to 4_2-branch, at this time. In any case,
we don't have a regression wrt 4.2.0 - only wrt 4.1.x if confirmed - and we
have a workaround.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-13 23:13 ---
I think this is really a duplicate of c++/30500.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30500 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-13 23:13 ---
*** Bug 21755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-13 01:19 ---
Seems also easy...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-13 00:56 ---
Seems easy to fix...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 09:19 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 10:24 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 15:02 ---
Can't reproduce with current mainline / 4_2-branch / 4_1-branch, on
x86_64-linux.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 18:00 ---
Yes, seems doable.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 18:20 ---
*** Bug 32730 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 18:20 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31401 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 21:56 ---
Doesn't fail anymore in mainline and 4_2-branch.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-11 22:37 ---
Thanks Volker.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32106
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-10 19:25 ---
Hi Michael, I'm wondering if we still care about this PR...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23472
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-09 08:43 ---
Note that in 4.3 the header dependencies have been streamlined and it's well
possible that some projects around are failing to include required headers.
Please double check in this light, thanks.
--
http
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-09 12:35 ---
Paolo agreed in private email to work on it (many thanks again!)
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-09 17:07 ---
Cannot be reproduced anymore. If people want me to add the testcase to be safe,
just let me know.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-09 17:52 ---
I can fix this...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-09 21:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Comment #2 From Andrew Pinski 2007-07-09 02:53 [reply] ---
No include for string.h or cstring.
Andrew, I'm not an expert at C++ but I did my best to attempt to make a couple
of reduced
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-08 14:34 ---
Not a 4.2 regression anymore.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-08 18:42 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I was confused by your crediting me with magic because it was Roger
Sayle who fixed the bug.
Ah! Curious, he doesn't work on the C++ front-end very often...
So, libstdc++ is the rare case
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-08 20:53 ---
Thanks for the clarification, Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-07 18:19 ---
Interesting: mainline is not affected by the problem. I would guess thanks to
fixing libstdc++/29286 ???
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-07 18:27 ---
One comment, to avoid wasting time (I don't have the time to understand why the
old library-simulation of concept checks is discussed in a C++ PR): for sure we
are not going to enable by default the simulated concept
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-07 22:44 ---
Hi Mark. First, I can point you to C++/21210. In that occasion (see in
particular Comment #3) we struggled with the issue quite a bit (if I remember
correctly we tried to avoid adding constructors...) then you came up
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-07 22:57 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Ah, thanks for finding the old PR. In looking at the mail threads, I
fail to find my magic solution. :-( Do you have a pointer to it?
Well, that PR is *closed as fixed*. Maybe at the time I
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-06 12:05 ---
Thanks Hans-Peter for the (partial) patch. Therefore, I understand now the
issue isn't a libstdc++ proper issue anymore? Someone should play with the
toplevel configure.ac?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-06 12:06 ---
Thanks for the patch. Care of adding a ChangeLog entry and posting it to
gcc-patches for public review? Thanks again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31906
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-06 16:33 ---
Ok, thanks. Let's ask Paolo's opinion here too (as a build system maintainer),
in particular about the final part of Comment #6...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-05 10:54 ---
Thanks David and Paolo. Ok, I'm sanity checking 's,g,g,' on linux...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31957
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-05 11:04 ---
It isn't, as explained by Paolo off-line (by the way Paolo maintains GNU sed),
essentially the same string is used in other projects to work around that AIX
problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #15 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-05 11:46 ---
Fixed for 4.2.1.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-05 14:37 ---
Let's add Hans-Peter in CC... I suspect adding an 'else if [info exists
env(RANLIB)]...' could do the job... Hans-Peter?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-05 15:04 ---
Thanks Hans-Peter. Are you willing to investigate this issue further?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32499
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-05 19:46 ---
Great. Thanks a lot.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31906
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-04 15:34 ---
Therefore, can we close the PR?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-04 16:16 ---
Feedback not forthcoming.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-04 20:39 ---
David, can you have a quick look at this issue? Thanks.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-03 14:43 ---
You want, e.g., an is.clear() after the first extraction, which leaves the is
stream on eof state.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-04 00:10 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-04 01:02 ---
I suspect Oliver is raising a good point, in very general terms. Before going
into the details, I want to make sure he knows this proposal, which is likely
to make into C++0x, in some form:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-02 14:27 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-02 14:29 ---
Without a testcase, we can't do much, sorry.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-02 16:09 ---
Seems doable...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-02 17:54 ---
Why, exactly?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31518
501 - 600 of 2278 matches
Mail list logo
