On Wed, 9 May 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
<g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
I assume this is a size_t vs int type problem, but the diagnostic
points to the function declaration, not to an actual binary
expression, and I can't figure out what it's complaining about:
My mailer uses proportional fonts so I can't make sense of the
diagnostics with the carets :-/
Note: my current patchset is:
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset
===================================================================
--- libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset (revision 186562)
+++ libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset (working copy)
@@ -1374,13 +1374,13 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
void
bitset<_Nb>::
_M_copy_from_ptr(const _CharT* __s, size_t __len,
size_t __pos, size_t __n, _CharT __zero, _CharT __one)
{
reset();
- const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, __len - __pos));
+ const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, (size_t)(__len -
__pos)));
style nits: It should be size_t(__len - __pos), and not (size_t)(__len - __pos).
Same for the other hunk. Patch OK with those changes.
This looks like a middle-end ICE that is at most worked around by the above
change. So I don't believe we should paper over it like this during stage1.
I agree that the ICE should be fixed, but sadly the patch will still be
necessary because of platforms where size_t is unsigned short (I didn't
know those existed...) and because std::max is picky about having the same
type for both arguments (the papers about improving it for C++11 were
rejected).
--
Marc Glisse
