Greetings Martin.
I believe this change is causing compile failures on the legacy tests,
as there were still a few stray references to _RWSTD_USE_CONFIG within
the legacy source files. A grep of the source tree indicates that the
following legacy files contain these references:
Andrew Black wrote:
Greetings Martin.
I believe this change is causing compile failures on the legacy tests,
as there were still a few stray references to _RWSTD_USE_CONFIG within
the legacy source files. A grep of the source tree indicates that the
following legacy files contain these
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-359?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481223
]
Eric Lemings commented on STDCXX-359:
-
It's the gcc-4.2 20070307 snapshot. It's quite possible GCC developers
Mark Brown wrote:
[...]
I propose tests/regress/stdcxx-NNN as the directory and file
naming convention for these new tests.
Comments?
I like how the existing tests are organized by sections in the standard. When
working on for example vector, it's easy to run just the container tests
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-359?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481306
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-359:
-
Sounds like the snapshot should give the same error for the well-formed
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-359?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481313
]
Eric Lemings commented on STDCXX-359:
-
Well, to be more accurate:
enum E { e };
E v:5;
int main () { if (!v)
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-359?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481315
]
Eric Lemings commented on STDCXX-359:
-
Correction:
enum E { e };
struct S {
E v:5;
};
S s;
int main() { if
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-359?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481316
]
Eric Lemings commented on STDCXX-359:
-
Confirmed. GCC 4.1.1 does not have a problem with the bitfield. GCC 4.2
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-359?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Sebor closed STDCXX-359.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Assuming the committed patch successfully works around the gcc bug. If not,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-97?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Sebor closed STDCXX-97.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Resolved by the referenced changes. Tested with XL C/C++ 8.0.0.12, 7.0.0.9,
7.0.0.7,
[XLC++ 7.0] ICE compiling 2.smartptr.shared.cpp
---
Key: STDCXX-360
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-360
Project: C++ Standard Library
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Tests
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-360?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Sebor updated STDCXX-360:
Attachment: t.cpp.gz
The same translation unit but only gzipped.
[XLC++ 7.0] ICE compiling
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-300?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Sebor updated STDCXX-300:
Priority: Blocker (was: Major)
This problem blocks the next release of stdcxx.
[XLC++ 8.0]
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-300?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481384
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-300:
-
Defining the _RWSTD_NO_EXPLICIT_INSTANTIATION_BEFORE_DEFINITION macro
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-300?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481418
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-300:
-
Since _RWSTD_NO_EXPLICIT_INSTANTIATION_BEFORE_DEFINITION alone may not be
15 matches
Mail list logo
