https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50518
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
--- Comment #11 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I posted a patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02190.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
--- Comment #9 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
(In reply to fabien from comment #6)
I looked into it but did not manage to get it fixed. I will have another try
this week. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
Any news?
I looked into it but did not manage to get it fixed. I will have another try
this week. Thanks for the reminder.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52369
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52369
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Mar 26 21:33:28 2014
New Revision: 208854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208854root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-26 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c++/52369
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32039
--- Comment #2 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #0)
The problem should be that B::foo hides A::foo from class C. Clause 7.3.3/14
of the C++ standard says the using declaration should not work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32039
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eelis from comment #1)
Still accepted by 4.4. Comeau concurs with reporter, and rejects saying:
line 15: error: class member designated by a
using-declaration must
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32039
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32039
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #16 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:16:15 2014
New Revision: 208182
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208182root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-26 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #15 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Mon Feb 24 20:27:34 2014
New Revision: 208093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208093root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-24 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
--- Comment #10 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrey Belevantsev from comment #9)
Another test case of the same issue (both clang and icc compile this fine):
It is not the same issue as the protected keyword is not involved
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #11 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Sun Feb 2 19:58:06 2014
New Revision: 207407
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207407root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-02 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #12 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Sun Feb 2 20:02:37 2014
New Revision: 207408
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207408root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-02 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roshan.shariff at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58047
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14258
--- Comment #20 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #19)
Fabien, the fix doesn't seem to work with nested-name-specifiers, do you
remember if there's another bug report about that case?
Yes, it's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58047
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54537
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #1)
Given the OK by Paolo, I retested the patch from:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01166.html
It needed a small change
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7)
Any news on this?
Sorry Paolo, no news. I will look into it after I resurrect some stage one 1
material patches on using decls (comming after c++/54537
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fabien at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
--- Comment #7 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-25 20:56:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
[...]
If so, this corrected test case still triggers ICE:
Good point. Further reduced:
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-25 21:04:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
[...]
2) check that the first operand of a COMPONENT_REF is actually a FIELD_DECL
before calling DECL_FIELD_IS_BASE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-23 10:42:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Any news on this bug? It's one of only a few P1 regressions left.
This bug triggers with --enable-checking on the constexpr stuff. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
--- Comment #4 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-23 22:00:44 UTC ---
I think the testcase is invalid
Shouldn't the below line be diagnosed, even if it is in a template ?
F name = x-value;
We fail to return early, and the compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
--- Comment #5 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-23 22:02:16 UTC ---
reduced testcase:
class A
{
virtual int String ();
};
class F: public A { };
template typename V class G
{
V value;
};
class D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
--- Comment #9 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 20:12:56 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Nov 14 20:12:47 2012
New Revision: 193504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193504
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-11-14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54537
Bug #: 54537
Summary: undiagnosed using-declaration conflicting with used
function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54537
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46687
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50921
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27 17:36:56 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Jun 27 17:36:50 2012
New Revision: 189021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189021
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-06-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53549
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-07 05:36:23 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Thu Jun 7 05:36:18 2012
New Revision: 188294
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188294
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-06-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53247
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b.r.longbons at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53236
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #7 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 21:06:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27180
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27180
return earlier in cp_parser_alias_declaration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 21:08:13 UTC ---
It is related to alias declarations. It seems that we do not recover properly
from a failure in cp_parser_alias_declaration, in the block introduced by this
check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-15 18:24:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
You should write to Jason directly, as he is probably the only person in
the
world
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-15 20:22:47 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Sun Apr 15 20:22:44 2012
New Revision: 186473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186473
Log:
2012-04-15 Fabien Chêne fab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 12:50:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Ping?
I haven't yet finished the investigation. Something is broken in c++11 mode,
the parsing of Solvable in using sat::Solvable::bool_type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-11 20:40:58 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Apr 11 20:40:51 2012
New Revision: 186355
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186355
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-04-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
--- Comment #4 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-04 21:52:15 UTC ---
This is because some USING_DECLs are stored in IDENTIDIER_BINDINGs. Jason, do
you agree that cxx_binding-value and cxx_binding-type should not be
USING_DECLs ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++11] name lookup issue |[4.7 Regression] [C++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52369
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-16 09:57:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #2)
Further investigation shows that the issue appears only when inheritance
from
the template class (class B : private
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
--- Comment #7 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-17 07:49:43 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Fri Feb 17 07:49:35 2012
New Revision: 184328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184328
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-02-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06 21:31:30 UTC ---
I'll be assigning myself to this bug when I come back from vacation next
monday.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14258
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26256
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23211
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30195
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6936
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25994
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
--- Comment #1 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-29 20:02:15 UTC ---
Here is a correct testcase for this bug.
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options -std=c++0x }
enum { A = 1 };
struct T
{
int i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6, i7;
enum E2 : int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23211
--- Comment #15 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-28 19:53:19 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Dec 28 19:53:14 2011
New Revision: 182711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182711
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2011-12-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23211
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50518
--- Comment #2 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20 13:29:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Any news on this?
No, sorry, I'll try to work on it before the end of stage 3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14258
--- Comment #15 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 18:47:04 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Tue Dec 13 18:46:58 2011
New Revision: 182292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182292
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2011-12-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14258
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51319
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-05 22:04:45 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Mon Dec 5 22:04:40 2011
New Revision: 182029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182029
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2011-12-05
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51319
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02 07:34:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
About the garbled error message - the second issue - the fix should be rather
trivial, just matter of handling USING_DECL in dump_expr together
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51276
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32039
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51141
--- Comment #4 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-18 18:44:25 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Fri Nov 18 18:44:23 2011
New Revision: 181490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181490
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2011-11-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
Bug #: 51214
Summary: [C++11] name lookup issue with c++11 enums
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
--- Comment #14 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-18 20:32:08 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Fri Nov 18 20:32:04 2011
New Revision: 181492
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181492
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2011-11-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
--- Comment #1 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-17 09:25:55 UTC ---
Yet another bug caused by my recent changes with using declarations.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-17 10:21:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #0)
[...]
Jason, I'd like to run the testsuite without this 7 member rule, how could I
do
that ?
To clarify, I mean 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51189
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51190
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-17 20:24:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
It looks like the sorted fields code in lookup_field_1 needs to handle
using_decl like the unsorted fields code does. I think this will also fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
--- Comment #7 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-17 20:57:16 UTC ---
FYI, it fixes the following PRs: c++/51190, c++/51189, c++/51188, c++/51152,
c++/51141.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51190
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
