Launchpad has imported 10 comments from the remote bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=623126.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-01-05T04:11:54+00:00 Respindola wrote: Created attachment 501245 patch nsSimpleUnicharStreamFactory is missing a user defined constructor, but in nsUnicharInputStream.cpp a const variable of this type is defined. This is not valid c++. For more information see "Default initialization of const variable of a class type requires user-defined default constructor" in http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html#c++ Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-01-05T10:44:57+00:00 Timeless-bemail wrote: The reporter's summary and initial comment were both lame. I'm merely adjusting the summary and providing a better link. I am not passing judgement on the quality of the bug report. http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html#default_init_const Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-01-05T13:54:24+00:00 Benjamin Smedberg (Mozilla) [:bs] wrote: Just as with the other bug, the missing constructor is intentional so that GCC does not emit a initialization function. Absent a detailed explanation from a language lawyer, I don't think I want to accept this change. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-01-05T21:32:48+00:00 Respindola wrote: Given the discussion on bug 623123, are you ok with it? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-02-22T15:57:50+00:00 Benjamin Smedberg (Mozilla) [:bs] wrote: *** Bug 614789 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-03-25T18:34:41+00:00 Ehsan-mozilla wrote: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ca41c5663999 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-30T09:35:11+00:00 Mh+mozilla wrote: *** Bug 645469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-30T11:12:10+00:00 Zilla-kayari wrote: (In reply to comment #2) > Just as with the other bug, the missing constructor is intentional so that GCC > does not emit a initialization function. Absent a detailed explanation from a > language lawyer, I don't think I want to accept this change. A bit late, but language lawyer here, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499#c2 for chapter and verse. As pointed out by some of the dups of this bug, GCC 4.6 rejects this too, see the note I added to http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html#cplusplus Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-05-03T11:41:10+00:00 Zilla-kayari wrote: I see that the commit adds empty user-defined constructors. Did anyone consider the alternative of adding an initializer instead, as I suggested in the GCC 4.6 changes and in Bug 645469 c5? That might avoid emitting an initialization function. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-05-03T12:09:22+00:00 Mh+mozilla wrote: (In reply to comment #8) > I see that the commit adds empty user-defined constructors. Did anyone > consider > the alternative of adding an initializer instead, as I suggested in the GCC > 4.6 > changes and in Bug 645469 c5? > That might avoid emitting an initialization function. I don't think it makes any difference in the generated code. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/10 ** Changed in: firefox Status: Unknown => Fix Released ** Changed in: firefox Importance: Unknown => Medium ** Bug watch added: GCC Bugzilla #44499 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/765970 Title: firefox version 4.0+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 failed to build on i386 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
