Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc at mattwhitlock dot name
$ cat EOF test.cpp
struct Base {
void foo() { }
void bar() { }
};
struct Derived : protected Base {
void foo() { this-Base::foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #10 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
(In reply to Rahul from comment #9)
I am also experiencing the same issue. Is there any solution for it?
You can wrap a preprocessor macro around string literals that you want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #17 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
Thanks for the fix, Segher. Your patch seems more right than mine, although I
will point out that it doesn't precisely address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #13 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
Would it better to use MD5 checksum on string contents?
MD5 would be slower for not much gain in uniqueness (assuming its output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #11 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
Created attachment 35479
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35479action=edit
put string literals into unique sections when -fmerge-constants -fdata-sections
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303
--- Comment #16 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
Here's a working solution:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192#c11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #15 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
This doesn't really look like a good idea to me. Instead, perhaps ld's
--gc-sections or new special option should just remove unused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040
--- Comment #5 from Matt Whitlock ---
FYI, this is still a problem in G++ 5.3.0.
: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc at mattwhitlock dot name
Target Milestone: ---
The following code should compile without error in C++17 mode:
/* BEGIN TEST CODE */
#include
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std::literals;
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86008
--- Comment #2 from Matt Whitlock ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #0)
> > The following shim allows the code above to compile, although it is
> > sub-optimal because it captures a
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc at mattwhitlock dot name
Target Milestone: ---
/* === BEGIN TEST CASE === */
#include
class S {
int i;
};
struct P {
char c;
S s;
} __attribute__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
--- Comment #3 from Matt Whitlock ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> If there is a change, then using two sources one compiled with -std=c++98
> and one with -std=c++11 (or later) will not be ABI compatible.
ABI compatibility
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
Matt Whitlock changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc at mattwhitlock dot name
Target Milestone: ---
/* BEGIN bug.cpp */
template
struct Base {
void func(int);
};
struct Derived : Base&l
RMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc at mattwhitlock dot name
Target Milestone: ---
// BEGIN test.cpp
#include
int main() {
using std::filesystem::path;
path p1{ "
oduct: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc at mattwhitlock dot name
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040
--- Comment #8 from Matt Whitlock ---
Maybe this example will demonstrate it more clearly.
/* begin example */
class PublicBase {
public:
void pub_base_pub_memb();
protected:
void pub_base_prot_memb();
};
class ProtectedBase {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040
--- Comment #10 from Matt Whitlock ---
So using declarations are not a direct replacement for user-defined thunks.
Today I learned! This makes using declarations decidedly less useful than I
believed.
Thank you for your time, Jonathan Wakely.
18 matches
Mail list logo
