Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 11:18:56AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I'm not on the list so please cc me any replies.
>>
>>I've noticed that friends cannot be protected or private anymore with
>>
Hi all,
I'm not on the list so please cc me any replies.
I've noticed that friends cannot be protected or private anymore with
g++-3.4 and g++-4.0. Is this the correct behaviour? Why?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ g++ -c test.cpp
test.cpp:4: error: ‘void test1::f1()’ is protected
test.cpp:9: error: wi
Phil Edwards wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:49:11PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>This isn't a question of precedence, which only affects the way an
>>>expression is interpreted. It&
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>This isn't a question of precedence, which only affects the way an
>expression is interpreted. It's strictly a problem of evaluation
>order. Precedence determines how the expression is parsed, i.e.
>(-X()) + Y() vs (-X() + Y) () an so forth.
>
>
I guess this is much e
close 278081
thanks
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 01:42:02PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>You can rearrange -X+Y, as well as -X()+Y or -X+Y(), but you cannot do
>>this for -X()+Y() unless you can guarantee that X() doesn't depe
I reported it upstream to,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18128
- Adam
--
Building your applications one byte at a time
http://www.galacticasoftware.com
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.5-1
Severity: important
IMHO, this bug should be grave since it has a potential for
breaking a lot of software, at least anything that
depends on things like stack operations. That is
stack A;
A.push(5);
A.push(2);
// do a subtraction of 5-2 and push resuls onto
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 04:44:16PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:51:03AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:00:11AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Adam Majer writes:
> > > > Ok, but the arch specific java pack
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:00:11AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam Majer writes:
> > Ok, but the arch specific java packages that do not build on hppa, mips,
> > and mipsel
> > need to have proper Architecture set.
>
> why? it doesn't hurt anybody.
It doe
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:07:06AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam Majer writes:
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:15:19PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Adam Majer writes:
> > > > reopen 211909
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > >
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:15:19PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam Majer writes:
> > reopen 211909
> > thanks
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:03:14PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > > The reason gcc doesn't build gcj for some ar
reopen 211909
thanks
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:03:14PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> #211909: Java packages are not built on HPPA, MIPS, MIPSEL,
> which was filed against the gcc-3.3 package.
>
> It has been closed by one
Package: gcc-3.3
Severity: serious
*At least* libgcj-common seems to be missing from builds
on HPPA, Mips, Mipsel.
Package is listed as Arch: any
This breaks any package on those architectures that depend
on libgcj-common eg. classpath.
- Adam
Weird. I just upgraded to latest libgcc1. Everything seems to
work alright.
NOTE: I am not a GCC maintainer :)
*** Std libs libgcc1 3.3-2 3.3-2 GCC support library
gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.3 (Debian)
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free softwar
14 matches
Mail list logo
