Matt Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
libjava is built on everything but vax and mips. Bootstrapping core
might be better but do the configure on the fly it's not as easy as
it used to be.
--enable-languages=c,c++ (or even perhaps --enable-languages=c)
doesn't work for you?
Also, I believe
Just some notes I've gathered on folding statements modified by TER...
First, a lot of the changes made do not affect the code we generate in
a meaningful way. That's because a lot of the changes merely reorder
operands in conditionals, arithmetic expressions and the like. For
example, after
Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
zw
Matt Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Henderson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:57:07PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I would expect it to be drastically faster. However this won't show up
clearly in the bootstrap. The, bar none, longest bit of the bootstrap
is
Hello all, esp. Dave and Mike,
sorry to bother you again. To begin with, I apologise for my
incomplete or ambiguous question. I would like to represent my problem
with better clarity.
Our company (a hardware company) has given a contract to another company
to port gcc onto its proprietory
Hi Richard,
the protoize utility can't be built with gcc 4.x.
Your patch Using .opt files for target options
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01297.html
makes options.h to be included by tm.h by adding it to tm_include_list
in gcc/configure.ac. tm.h is included by protoize.c. That
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
jeff
i found madd instruction in mips.md,
but why when i compiled it with my cross-compile mipsel-linux-gcc as follows,
mipsel-linux-gcc -mips4 -O2 test.c -S
i can`t find any madd instruction in test.s??
what else should i do?
James E Wilson writes:
Andrew Haley wrote:
* postreload-gcse.c (hash_scan_set): Removve bogus assertion.
I agree with Roger here, we need to add code to handle REG_EG_REGION
notes here instead of just dropping the gcc_assert call. See my 2 week
old message on the gcc list when
Hi all,
this is just a tiny note, that gcc-4.0 does produce miscompiled binaries
on sparc(32)-linux with -mcpu=ultrasparc. Some binaries work, however
many such as bash, curl or gzip segfault.
I know this is not a reduced testcase, just a note. I try to invest some
time over the weekend to
On 2005-04-26 13:15:43 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The initializer thus tries to give a variable with type unsigned:8
a value that it cannot hold. The diagnostic is correct.
However it is correct to store any integer to an unsigned variable,
even if the original value cannot be represented.
Vincent Lefevre writes:
On 2005-04-26 13:15:43 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The initializer thus tries to give a variable with type unsigned:8
a value that it cannot hold. The diagnostic is correct.
However it is correct to store any integer to an unsigned variable,
even if the
On 2005-04-27 03:37:15 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However it is correct to store any integer to an unsigned variable,
even if the original value cannot be represented.
If that operation occurs at runtime it has a well-defined result.
And gcc 4
Vincent Lefevre writes:
On 2005-04-27 03:37:15 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However it is correct to store any integer to an unsigned variable,
even if the original value cannot be represented.
If that operation occurs at runtime it has
On 2005-04-27 12:29:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
Vincent Lefevre writes:
The only two constraints in 6.6 are:
[#3] Constant expressions shall not contain assignment,
increment, decrement, function-call, or comma operators,
except when they are
On 2005-04-27 12:34:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
You said if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants,
right? To which the correct answer is no, they don't.
Why not?
--
Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog:
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| static const unsigned char AAA = 0x1U;
| static const unsigned char BBB = 0x2U;
|
| Again, C does not work the way you think. These are not constants.
|
| But if they are never modified, they
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 2005-04-27 03:37:15 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
| Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| However it is correct to store any integer to an unsigned variable,
| even if the original value cannot be represented.
|
| If that operation occurs
Vincent Lefevre wrote:-
Before the conversion, the value is representable in the type of
the expression, and after the conversion (which is well-defined),
it is still representable in the (new) type of the expression.
6.7.8#11 mentions the possible conversion. So, I disagree here.
Warnings
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
|But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right?
|
|The fact that they are not considered as constant expressions,
|is it due to the fact that the environment is allowed to modify
|them?
|
| It's due to
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 2005-04-27 12:34:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
| You said if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants,
| right? To which the correct answer is no, they don't.
|
| Why not?
I think the answer to that question was in the part you
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
Or if tree expansion were rewritten. One of the many things still on
Hi Andrew!
I am reading it right now...
I just have to figure out, what you really need or not.
Greets,
Clemens Koller
___
RD Imaging Devices
Anagramm GmbH
Rupert-Mayer-Str. 45/1
81379 Muenchen
Germany
http://www.anagramm.de
Phone: +49-89-741518-50
Fax: +49-89-741518-19
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 2005-04-27 15:41:06 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| | It is said constant expressions, not integer constant expressions.
|
| And an integer constant expression is not a constant expression in
| your
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| [...]
|
| |But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right?
| |
| |The fact that they are not considered as
On Apr 27, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Clemens Koller wrote:
...and it's not reproducable yet.
On a second try the compile was fine and test-idouble just works...
~/newbuild/glibc-2.3.5-build/math$ ./test-idouble
testing double (inline functions)
Test suite completed:
2562 test cases plus 2337 tests for
Original Message
From: Vincent Lefevre
Sent: 27 April 2005 15:47
Example: the expression 1+1 is not a constant,
OK then, let's see you assign a different value to it!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
David Edelsohn wrote:
Matt Thomas writes:
Matt Regardless, GCC4.1 is a computational pig.
If you are referring to the compiler itself, this has no basis in
reality. If you are referring to the entire compiler collection,
including runtimes, you are not using a fair comparison or
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 2005-04-27 17:30:25 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| | Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| |
| | [...]
| |
| | |But if
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:05:39AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
GCC now supports C++, Fortran 90 and Java. Those languages have
extensive, complicated runtimes. The GCC Java environment is becoming
much more complete and standards compliant, which means adding
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:05:39AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
GCC now supports C++, Fortran 90 and Java. Those languages have
extensive, complicated runtimes. The GCC Java environment is becoming
much more complete and standards compliant,
Richard Earnshaw writes:
Richard On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:31, David Edelsohn wrote:
The GCC build times are not unreasonable compared to other,
commercial compilers with similar functionality. And the GCC developers
ave plans to address inefficiencies -- GCC 4.0 often is faster than GCC
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
fold_indirect_ref, called from the gimplifier happily converts
const char *a;
...
*(char *)a[x] = 0;
to
a[x] = 0;
confusing alias1 and ICEing in verify_ssa:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:29, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:19, David Edelsohn wrote:
Richard Earnshaw writes:
Richard On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:31, David Edelsohn wrote:
The GCC build times are not unreasonable compared to other,
commercial compilers with similar
For the record, I cannot reproduce this on linux with -O2 or -O0. If you
continue to have problems, I strongly suggest reporting this in bugzilla.
-benjamin
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Read Zack's sentence
|
|These are not constants.
|
| from
|
| http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01436.html
|
| as
|
| These (i.e. AAA, etc.) are not constant expressions.
|
| Are you happy now?
|
| This is better.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:36:41AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to look into why we're seeing so many * expressions
during TER.
We have an open PR for this. We don't propagate the when
it's not a constant. Like in x-y.
r~
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 09:35 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:36:41AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to look into why we're seeing so many * expressions
during TER.
We have an open PR for this. We don't propagate the when
it's not a constant.
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
fold_indirect_ref, called from the gimplifier happily converts
const char *a;
...
*(char *)a[x] = 0;
to
a[x] = 0;
confusing alias1 and ICEing in verify_ssa:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 08:47 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
Or if
Hi,
Steven Bosscher wrote:
this is just a tiny note, that gcc-4.0 does produce miscompiled binaries
on sparc(32)-linux with -mcpu=ultrasparc. Some binaries work, however
many such as bash, curl or gzip segfault.
I know this is not a reduced testcase, just a note. I try to invest some
time over
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:29:54PM +, Sriharsha wrote:
I am not interested in any legal opinion nor are we planning any legal
recourse:
All I am asking are questions like:
Will a free-standing implementation of newlib not include functions like
'printf'?
See
Matt Thomas wrote:
Alas, the --disable-checking and STAGE1_CFLAGS=-O2 -g (which I was
already doing) only decreased the bootstrap time by 10%. By far, the
longest bit of the bootstrap is building libjava.
Building libjava takes forever on any platform, relative to the rest of
the compiler build.
GCC 4.0.0 has been successfully built on Fedora Core 3
Config.guess output:
i686-pc-linux-gnu
gcc -v output:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --prefix=/usr/local
--mandir=/usr/local/share/man --infodir=/usr/local/share/info
Ian == Ian Lance Taylor ian@airs.com writes:
Matt Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a 50MHz 68060 with 96MB of memory (MVME177) approaching 100 hours
(48 hours just to exit stage3 and start on the libraries) doing a bootstrap
knowing that it's going to die when doing the ranlib of
On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:40 PM, James E Wilson wrote:
Thanks for the info. I have posted a proposed patch on the gcc-
patches mailing list here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02720.html
Yes, this is ok. One final nit, if you'd like to fix it as well, is
that obj-c++ should be
I have redone the implementation of the eeprom attribute in my prototype.
It is now a cleaner solution, but requires larger changes in the core,
but the changes in the core should not affect any backend/frontend, if
it does not uses them (except a missing case in tree_copy_mem_area, which
will
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 19:15, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 08:47 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
When we
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 12:53, Mike Stump wrote:
Yes, this is ok. One final nit, if you'd like to fix it as well, is
that obj-c++ should be added as a non-default language:
Good catch. I fixed that in my patch.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava build
-- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl. Maybe
it comes from doing some processing on 5000 foo.o files all at
once... :-(
But that is not GCC fault that binutils cannot handle that load.
-- Pinski
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 02:44, Andrew Haley wrote:
Well, of course I'm not going to disagree with you, but I removed the
assertion because it totally broke the Java front end.
That means you traded a visible compile time error for a possible silent
run-time error. That sounds like a poor trade
On Apr 26, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
It would be nice if bootstrap emitted timestamps when it was started
and when it completed a stage so one could just look at the make
output.
You can get them differenced for free by using:
time make boostrap
and written to a log file with
Does anyone have a working recipe to build gcc as a cross compiler for
powerpc, to execute under cygwin
I've been able to compile binutils, and build the c/c++ compiler, but am
failing in:
configure: error: No support for this host/target combination.
make: *** [configure-target-libstdc++-v3]
Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 26, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
It would be nice if bootstrap emitted timestamps when it was started
and when it completed a stage so one could just look at the make output.
You can get them differenced for free by using:
time make boostrap
I know that.
On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Amir Fuhrmann wrote:
configure: error: No support for this host/target combination.
make: *** [configure-target-libstdc++-v3] Error 1
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --target=powerpc-eabi
powerpc-unknown-eabi?
On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Neil Booth wrote:
Even better, you can turn of the warning with a cast, making your
intent explicit to the compiler, so there's every reason to have
it on by default.
And, if you don't like casts, you can (...)255 or whatever.
Andrew == Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava
build -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl.
Maybe it comes from doing some processing on 5000 foo.o files all
at once... :-(
Andrew But that is not
Andrew == Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava
build -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl.
Maybe it comes from doing some processing on 5000 foo.o files all
at once... :-(
Andrew But
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
may not have been
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed
earlier. But since _nobody_ has complained before you, I guess we
can conclude that by far the majority if GCC
Having seen Joe's comment, I should say that I agree with him that a
lot of other projects' mailing lists are worse. However, that isn't
an excuse in my book.
zw
Snapshot gcc-3.3-20050427 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.3-20050427/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.3 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_3-20050427
You'll find
Matt Thomas wrote:
I like the more and simplier patterns approach but I'm wondering what
the general recommendation is?
If an optimization pass will re-recog after rewriting an insn, then it
is OK to have two separate patterns for two separate assembly insns.
Otherwise, the optimization pass
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed
earlier. But since _nobody_ has complained before you,
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
affects people who compile the compiler; but the more general case of
'gcc takes forever to compile this program' does appear
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:10 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
affects people who compile the compiler; but the more general case
Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What you say is true. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
Let me point out the important part again: All I ever see people
suggest is magic bullets.
We should try, but by doing the hard work. Not by expecting magic.
Sure. CodeSourcery did have a
The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
Sure, and get flamed and trounced by Uli on glibc when you talk
about problems
David Gressett wrote:
The attempt to make HTML documentation crashes:
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/jdg/gccbuild/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libada'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `html'. Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jdg/gccbuild/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libada'
make: *** [html-target-libada]
On 2005-04-28, at 03:06, Peter Barada wrote:
Well, yes. 1 second/file is still slow! I want make to complete
instantaneously! Don't you?
Actually I want it to complete before I even start, but I don't want
to get too greedy. :)
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain,
On 2005-04-28, at 01:35, Joe Buck wrote:
I will agree with you on this point, but more than half of the time
to bootstrap consists of the time to build the Java library, and
speeding
that up is a losing battle, as Sun keeps adding new stuff that
libgjc/classpath is then expected to clone, and the
On 2005-04-27, at 22:54, Karel Gardas wrote:
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 2,456,727
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 725.95
(8,711.36)
(Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
Schedule Estimate, Years (Months)
Amir Fuhrmann wrote:
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --exec-prefix=/usr/local --program-prefix=ppc-
--with-stabs -with-cpu=603 --target=powerpc-eabi --with-gnu-as=ppc-as
--with-gnu-ld=ppc-ld --enable-languages=c,c++
Try adding --with-newlib. You either have to use a combined tree so
that newlib will be
zouq wrote:
i found madd instruction in mips.md, but why when i compiled it with
my cross-compile mipsel-linux-gcc as follows, mipsel-linux-gcc -mips4
-O2 test.c -S i can`t find any madd instruction in test.s??
Basic questions like this are really more appropriate for the gcc-help
list. The
Peter Barada [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
available(such as gcc needing headers, and glibc needing
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
available(such as gcc needing headers, and glibc needing -lgcc-eh), so
even really fast
Peter Barada [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
available(such as gcc needing headers, and glibc needing
The SC has decided to add Mike Stump as maintainer of the Darwin
port, joining Stan Shebs and Dale Johannesen. Thanks for
volunteering, Mike, and please add yourself to the MAINTAINERS
file in the appropriate spot.
Hi,
I am using a cross compiler sparclet-aout-gcc. I have written my own
main function and does not link to libgcc's main function while
linking is done. I m not able to initialize the global objects The
generated executable format is a.out.
For example:
when I execute the following program I
These started failing immediately after 4.1.0 was able to bootstrap Ada
on x86_64-linux, that is to say between
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Apr 3 16:59:59 UTC 2005
LAST_UPDATED: Fri Apr 15 18:15:00 UTC 2005
Part of array copying generated code must be wrong in some way to get those test
failing.
,.,.
This problem may be related to Bug report 17470.
The typeinfo of a template class instantiation can not be changed with
__attribute__ ((visibility(default))).
Example:
templatetypename T class Abc{
public:
virtual ~Abc(){}
};
template class __attribute__ ((visibility(default))) Abcint;
Abcint
The 2 source files illustrate how g++ 4.0.0 gets confused template
instantiation. It tries to instantiate an unrelated template.
--
Summary: Confusion in template instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--- Additional Comments From dominik dot strasser at infineon dot com
2005-04-27 06:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=8747)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8747action=view)
Source file illustrating the faulty behavior
Error messages:
gcc4_template.C: In function
--- Additional Comments From dominik dot strasser at infineon dot com
2005-04-27 06:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=8748)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8748action=view)
Another source illustrating the problem.
Error messages:
While trying to adapt a patch from GNU classpath to libgcj I found that gcjh
was failing to build a CNI header from a class file. I accidently deleted my
terminal and lost the command output. So I tried again and the bug seemed to
have vanished. After some investigation I found the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-27
07:13 ---
The first example is invalid is a dup of bug 19404. Now the second example
looks to be a bug in
libstdc++.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From konqueror at gmx dot de 2005-04-27 07:17
---
Created an attachment (id=8749)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8749action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21245
The next code, should show int the screen a:2 b:3; but shows a:3 b:3.
I have tested it into several versions from 3.3 to 4.0. Always the same result.
void foo(int a,int b)
{
std::couta:a b:bstd::endl;
}
int main()
{
int n=2;
foo(n,++n);
}
--
Summary: Compiler fails when using
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21246
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21238
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-27 08:54
---
The second example seems to me also a duplicate of 19404. This is a reduced
testcase:
class Foo { };
templateclass T void operator/(const Foo, T);
enum { _S_word_bit = 1 };
class vector_bool
{ void _M_allocate()
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-04-27 08:59
---
(In reply to comment #18)
I submitted a patch, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02284.html,
but as the mail says it results in a lot of regressions in the compat and
vector tests.
I'll see what
--- Additional Comments From dominik dot strasser at infineon dot com
2005-04-27 09:07 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The second example seems to me also a duplicate of 19404. This is a reduced
testcase:
class Foo { };
templateclass T void operator/(const Foo, T);
enum {
--- Additional Comments From dominik dot strasser at infineon dot com
2005-04-27 09:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=8750)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8750action=view)
Use const static member instead of enum
--
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-27 09:15
---
No, we don't want to change the implementation of the library in case of user
error. Really, this is a duplicate of 19404.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19404 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-27 09:15
---
*** Bug 21244 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-27 09:24
---
On second thought, maybe we can safely change the enum to not be anonymous...
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21244
--- Additional Comments From dominik dot strasser at infineon dot com
2005-04-27 09:28 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
On second thought, maybe we can safely change the enum to not be anonymous...
I think so, too as I can't see any user error in the second example.
--
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-27 09:37
---
Yes, you are right, but I don't want to fiddle too much with that constant, in
particular risking to change its size (the standard doesn't guarantee that the
underlying type of that anonymous enum is int), seems
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
