[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-15 17:44 --- Ah, thanks Dave! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Comment #10 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 17:35 --- (still here - only de-cc'd one of my two addresses) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Comment #9 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 17:32 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Is the print member really already overflowed? It has a value of 0200 which > is > 0x80: so if char is signed (it is on cygwin) then it's setting the sign bit, > which should be OK I think. No, it isn't. A signed char can contain values between 0x7f and -0x80. Assigning a value of +0x80 to it results in overflow. You could assign (char)0x80 to it and it would be ok, but 0x80 by itself isn't a constant that will fit in a signed char, so it does need the cast (or to be expressed as the negative equivalent.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Comment #8 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 17:31 --- Oops, that was slightly premature. I meant to add that the error (from the original testcase) doesn't happen with the 4.3.4 system compiler nor with 4.5.0 head, and that I'm afraid there aren't going to be any bugs fixed in 3.4.4, the entire 3 series is long dead. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Comment #7 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 17:30 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Confirmed, this is either a cygwin/newlib bug or a libstdc++ bug: > reduced testcase for the error: Reduced reduced testcase: static const char print = 0x97; -- davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||davek at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-15 15:53 --- Dave, any hints about this cygwin issue? -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dave dot korn dot cygwin at ||gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Additional Comments From john at johnmaddock dot co dot uk 2005-08-08 09:57 --- Is the print member really already overflowed? It has a value of 0200 which is 0x80: so if char is signed (it is on cygwin) then it's setting the sign bit, which should be OK I think. Although I admit I would have prefered the use of an unsigned type as a bitmask. Aha! Is this the cause? : the signed value is promoted to an int initially *with sign extension*, and then when the compiler has all the values it desides that the enum needs only one byte for storage, so it tries to fit all the values into "signed char", and only then finds that the promoted value won't fit? I'm just making wild guesses here you understand! Thanks, John Maddock. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-07 18:03 --- ppc-darwin have the definition of mask type as: typedef unsigned long mask; i686-pc-linux have: typedef unsigned short mask; -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-07
17:59 ---
Confirmed, this is either a cygwin/newlib bug or a libstdc++ bug:
reduced testcase for the error:
typedef char mask;
static const mask print = 020 | 01 | 02 | 04 | 0200;
enum char_class_type{
char_class_print = print
};
the overflow is correct print was already overflowed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
GCC build triplet|i686-pc-cygwin |
GCC host triplet|i686-pc-cygwin |
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-08-07 17:59:22
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
[Bug libstdc++/23271] Members of ctype_base appear not to be integral constant expressions.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-07 15:08 --- Could you attach the preprocessed source? You can get the preprocessed source via -save-temps, and it is named with .ii as the suffix. -- What|Removed |Added GCC build triplet|gcc version 3.4.4 (cygming |i686-pc-cygwin |special) (gdc 0.12, using | |dmd 0.125) | GCC host triplet|gcc version 3.4.4 (cygming |i686-pc-cygwin |special) (gdc 0.12, using | |dmd 0.125) | GCC target triplet|gcc version 3.4.4 (cygming |i686-pc-cygwin |special) (gdc 0.12, using | |dmd 0.125) | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23271
