https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
Target Milestone|4.4.5
--- Comment #22 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-10 13:38
---
Jon, I would recommend closing this. We don't want to fiddle with auto_ptr
anyway, and the small issue with shared_ptr is fixed for 4.6.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #23 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 13:54 ---
we have regressed in terms of the warning, but no diagnostic is required and
auto_ptr is deprecated in C++0x, so WONTFIX
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #21 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-31 18:41 ---
Subject: Bug 43820
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 31 18:41:33 2010
New Revision: 160082
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160082
Log:
2010-05-31 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
PR
--- Comment #20 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-27 10:55 ---
I have a patch which causes an error if std::shared_ptr or std::tr1::shared_ptr
is constructed with a pointer to incomplete type and no custom deleter. I'm
not sure what the best approach is for auto_ptr. Technically
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown |4.4.3
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #12 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 09:23 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
By the way, there's no warning with -Wall or even -Wextra. Is there a flag
-Wabsolutely_all_warnings_we_promise that I have missed and that would really
enable *all* warnings ?
No, sorry,
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-21 17:04
---
static_asserts are fine, of course. Otherwise, if the real issue is that errors
coming from system headers are suppressed and shouldn't, sometimes, from the
user point of view, that is a **front-end** issue,
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-21 17:11
---
Forgot: before doing anything about those diagnostic issues, we should double
check what other compilers do with / without our library, thus, say current ICC
/ something else (even among those available
--- Comment #15 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 17:41 ---
Comeau warns on the auto_ptr case. boost::shared_ptr refuses to compile if the
type is incomplete
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-21 18:18
---
Note I'm traveling, thus I have limited capabilities. I strongly recommend
digging out that conversation about the pragma itself, with Ian too involved,
and trying to put to good use static_asserts and any
--- Comment #17 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 18:26 ---
ok, thanks for the pointers, I'll hunt for the discussion
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-21 18:48
---
c++/43167 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #19 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 18:59 ---
thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-20 16:21 ---
Could be a front-end bug, but probably something in the library
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2010-04-20 17:10 ---
I think this is connected to the suppress warning is the standard library
pragma starting to actually work.
--
chris at bubblescope dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-20 17:17
---
And frankly note that anything related to auto_ptr is very unlikely to change,
given the deprecation status, unless it's something like the code doesn't
compile anymore.
--
--- Comment #4 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2010-04-20 17:18 ---
Yes, in C++0x mode, we should just add a deprication warning for auto_ptr full
stop.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-20 18:22 ---
sure, it's deprecated in C++0x mode, but it's a pretty bad regression that it
no longer warns in C++03 mode
Chris is right, -Wsystem-headers restores the warning
--
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-20 18:30
---
To me it looks like a front-end issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-20 18:36
---
Maybe I should clarify my earlier message: at this time in the life of
auto_ptr, it seems quite unlikely to me that we'll non-trivially change the
implementation only because a warning is not emitted anymore.
--- Comment #8 from rlerallut at free dot fr 2010-04-20 18:41 ---
@Chris Jefferson : indeed, if I roll my own auto_ptr locally, I get the
proper warning, as well as if I use -Wsystem-headers (didn't know that one).
@Paolo Carlini : I'm using the default standard mode for gcc 4.4, so I
--- Comment #9 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2010-04-20 18:53 ---
I don't think it's a front-end issue. '#pragma GCC system_header' is
specifically designed to stop warnings in headers. However, it stops 'good'
warnings as well as 'bad' warnings. 'system_header' could be extended to
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-20 18:59
---
Nah, the pragma must stay, we have it everywhere, consistently. And I really do
not understand why auto_ptr is *so* special to need more warnings to be spilled
vs *all* the rest of the library in order to be
--- Comment #11 from rlerallut at free dot fr 2010-04-20 19:09 ---
I don't think auto_ptr is special and I, as a mere user, would appreciate you
didn't hide *helpful* warnings from anywhere (but I do also appreciate your
efforts in limiting spurious warnings !).
I have the option of
27 matches
Mail list logo
