* Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050921 17:46]:
Gaurav Gautam, Noida [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does -fshort-enum guides the size of enumeration type or the size of
enumerator constant ?
An enumerator constant is not an object, thus it has no size of its own.
Since the enumerator
Original Message
From: Jonathan Turkanis
Sent: 23 September 2005 01:43
If the implication is that users should grep the source code before asking
questions, that's not a reasonable expectation.
It is actually the _fundamental_ principle under which this particular
mailing list
Hi Jan,
I think fixup_reorder_chain contains questionable code to cope with a
pathological case:
/* The degenerated case of conditional jump jumping to the next
instruction can happen on target having jumps with side
effects.
Hello,
I've opened a bugzilla for this: #24034
Bye,
-Andreas-
Hi Gaurav,
Please confirm which of the two outputs is correct and why is there
a
difference in the output of two versions of compiler?
Both outputs are correct.
No, the standard is entirely unambiguous:
6.4.4.3
I actually believe there was reason for creating the loop (ie
redirecting the edge to anything else than the fallthru egdge
destination) as otherwise we screwed up in
force_nonfallthru_and_redirect and this function (called via
force_nonfallthru) is supposed to redirect the jump back to
Hi Gaurav,
You could do this...
q = 4294967295U
Or you could use -std=iso9899:1999 (perhaps with -pedantic) for the compiler
to produce an error. Assuming you are using GCC 4.x.
Or if you *want* to allow that, you could do this...
-std=gnu99
I'm guessing as to which version of GCC you are
Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Jonathan Turkanis
Sent: 23 September 2005 01:43
If the implication is that users should grep the source code before asking
questions, that's not a reasonable expectation.
It is actually the _fundamental_ principle under which this
The recommended way to build gcc-4.0.2 on Solaris 10 x86 is to use the
binutils assembler and the solaris linker:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#ix86-x-solaris210
This works, as long as you suppress HAVE_GAS_COMDAT_GROUP ( see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01332.html ) but the
Eric Botcazou wrote:
The GCC 4.0.2 RC3 prerelease is spinning now.
Regressions on Solaris 2.6, 7, 8 and 9:
FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_allocate_big_per_type.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_delete.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_new.cc execution test
FAIL:
Hi list
I was told that gcc by default, for every class creates operator =, and
probably something else. This makes binary file bit larger than it suppose to
be. Is it true, and if so, why this is the case ? Can gcc simply not generate
that operator?
--
Vercetti
On Sep 22, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I will pull a patch together tomorrow. There is currently nothing
in the code for keeping the region stuff up to date as changes are
made to the cfg. For most changes this would not be hard, but for
some it is really hard.
OK. I've
Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:
(auroralinux corona + rathann's and rzm's FC3 updates)
binutils-2.16.91.0.2-4.sparc
bison-1.875c-2.sparc
dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch
expect-5.42.1-1.sparc
gcc-3.4.3-22.sparc.sparc
gcc4-4.0.0-0.41.sparc.sparc
to libstdc++ is the only obvious culprit. Benjamin, Jakub, are you
investigating these failures? We need to get this resolved ASAP.
I'm on it.
-benjamin
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
to libstdc++ is the only obvious culprit. Benjamin, Jakub, are you
investigating these failures? We need to get this resolved ASAP.
I'm on it.
Thanks!
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
Dave == Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave What version of CVS are you using, and does it speak the -X
Dave option (new in 1.12.x)?
Dave http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.12.12/cvs_16.html#SEC155
By my reading the -X option requires 1.12 to be running on the server
as well. So, I'm
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:21:06PM -0700, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
/* Avoid creating invalid subregs, for example when
simplifying (x32)255. */
! if (final_word = GET_MODE_SIZE (inner_mode)
! || (final_word %
On Sep 23, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:21:06PM -0700, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
/* Avoid creating invalid subregs, for example when
simplifying (x32)255. */
! if (final_word = GET_MODE_SIZE
On Friday, September 23, 2005, at 08:31 AM, Andrew Morrow wrote:
If I look at the assembly listings in thunk32.s and visibility32.s I
see the same listing that defines __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx in both
files:
.section
.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx,ax,@progbits
.globl
Hello all,
I am an active AltiVec PPC assembly programmer, but until recently have
not been using gcc's AltiVec extensions.
However, lately, with a project I am contributing to, called macstl
(www.pixelglow.com/macstl/), I've become involved in using this stuff.
So there is my question:
On Sep 23, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Ilya Lipovsky wrote:
Hello all,
I am asking this, because we're having some problems with those
builtins inlining instructions properly when a certain level of logic
complexity (in loops) arises. Even worse, gcc 4.0 (both 4.0.0 and
4.0.1) generates bad code
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 07:09:21PM +0200, Tommy Vercetti wrote:
I was told that gcc by default, for every class creates operator =, and
probably something else. This makes binary file bit larger than it
suppose to be. Is it true, and if so, why this is the case ? Can gcc
simply not generate
Joe Buck wrote:
Another extra function people sometimes complain about is the two copies
of the constructor: the in-charge version is for constructing an instance
of the class, and the not-in-charge version is for initializing the base
portion of a derived class. Getting rid of the
The issue is the same as in #13675, but it still exists in GCC4.
The problem is:
#include precompiled.h
#include precompiled.h
gives:
$ g++ test.cpp
test.cpp:2:21: calling fdopen: Bad file descriptor
--
Summary: Invalid handling of multiple includes of precompiled
--- Additional Comments From filip693 at wp dot pl 2005-09-23 08:53 ---
Subject: Odp: configure: error: no acceptable cc found in $PATH
Dnia 8-09-2005 o godz. 13:06 pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
napisa³(a):
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-23 09:45
---
Adding Rth in CC as the author of the fix of libstdc++/10606, which added the
call of __cxa_get_globals from __cxa_allocate_exception
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
09:58 ---
I've rewritten execute_cse_reciprocals, I think the only useful solution is to
implement the optimal scheme for inserting reciprocals, and fix this bug in the
process.
My algorithm builds a mock dominator
--- Additional Comments From wouter at grep dot be 2005-09-23 10:14 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23078 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From wouter at grep dot be 2005-09-23 10:14 ---
*** Bug 23674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23078
Doing a simple build (no bootstrap), on x86-linux:
$ ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/guerby/tmp/install1 --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,ada --disable-nls --enable-threads=posix
$ make m1.log
$ touch ../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c
$ make m2.log
$
In m2.log I see that libbackend is rebuilt, as
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at adacore dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24030
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:06 ---
Subject: Bug 23837
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 12:05:58
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog optabs.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:15 ---
Subject: Bug 23991
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 12:15:43
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
Log message:
Add
Building a tool chain for sh4 results in the following ICE:
/home/alex/crosstool/crosstool-0.38/build/sh4-linux/gcc-4.1-20050917-glibc-2.3.5/build-gcc/./gcc/xgcc
-v -save-temps-shared-libgcc
-B/home/alex/crosstool/crosstool-0.38/build/sh4-linux/gcc-4.1-20050917-glibc-2.3.5/build-gcc/./gcc
--- Additional Comments From sieb at sscd dot de 2005-09-23 12:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=9795)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9795action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24032
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:21 ---
Fixed by Kenny's patch
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-09-23 12:30
---
Subject: Re: CCP is broken
On September 23, 2005 01:29, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-23 05:29 --- The reason why CCP thinks
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:37 ---
There is no recursive inlining happening at least on 4.1 because of overall unit
growth limit is met, so we do remarkably worse compared to 3.4 anyway.
Enabling recursive inlining makes it very active.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:44 ---
This is a dup of bug 13675. We don't need a seperate bug to track this for
3.4.0 and 4.0.0.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13675 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:45 ---
*** Bug 24029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23078
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:47 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22553 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:47 ---
*** Bug 24032 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17667
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:49 ---
The difference in stack usage is caused by ivopts. -fno-ivopts reduces 4.1
stack usage to 12 bytes and 200 bytes with --param inline-unit-growth=100
Especially in the second case ivops should probably
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:50 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:55 ---
Actually none of the target libraries are rebuilt after the compiler is rebuilt.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:56 ---
Is there some source someone can look at?
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:56 ---
Both paches are affecting inlining decisions and it looks like parser somehow
got unlucky on PPC (they didn't cause similar regression on parser for AMD64).
It would be very useful to know what function
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:59 ---
The main issue is that the inliner does fold as it is replacing the use.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
13:22 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12272 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
13:22 ---
*** Bug 23967 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From andre_orwell at yahoo dot com dot au
2005-09-23 13:34 ---
Subject: Re: ambiguous overload reported for no obvious reason
Thanks - obvious when its pointed out. Sorry for the bother.
On Friday 23 September 2005 01:17, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||15023
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24034
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
--- Additional Comments From charlet at adacore dot com 2005-09-23 14:13
---
Subject: Re: libada not rebuilt when libbackend is
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
14:26 ---
Removing myself from cc: to avoid receiving each message on this PR twice...
--
What|Removed |Added
ICE when using -mfloat-gprs=double with -mspe=no. Found in the e500 branch,
reproducible in mainline.
Test case:
typedef double _Complex _Dcomplex;
double (cabs)(_Dcomplex x) { }
[EMAIL PROTECTED] rmansfield]$
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
16:47 ---
Hmm, my simple example shows that this is a regression also in 3.4.0 but that
looks like a different
bug than the orginal one.
Anyways here is the reduced testcase for the reported bug, I will file the
Take the following preprocessed souece:
# 1 t.c
# 1 built-in
# 1 command line
# 1 t.c
# 1 t.h 1
1
# 2 t.c 2
cut --
with this in 3.3.3, we got:
In file included from t.c:1:
t.h:1: error: parse error before numeric constant
But in 3.4.0 and above:
t.h:1: error: expected
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
16:51 ---
This was caused by the new parser. The C front-end is not effected.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
16:51 ---
Filed comment #2 as PR 24037.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24009
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
16:54 ---
Caused between 20040920 and 20040921 which means this was caused by:
2004-09-20 Matt Austern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Note there was a time in 3.4.x were he had the
ICE when using -mfloat-gprs=double with -mspe=no. Found in the e500 branch,
reproducible in mainline.
Test case:
typedef double _Complex _Dcomplex;
double (cabs)(_Dcomplex x) { }
[EMAIL PROTECTED] rmansfield]$
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
16:59 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24036 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
16:59 ---
*** Bug 24038 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24036
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
17:16 ---
Subject: Bug 16861
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 17:16:07
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: module.c ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From dj at redhat dot com 2005-09-23 17:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE: no-op convert from 8 to 4 bytes in
initializer
I recall that the opposite case is problematic; initializing a large
int from a smaller one, because gcc always zero pads at the
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-09-23 17:33
---
The 17 x86 only regressions were introduced by this patch, Jan asked me to look
for generated libcalls, more info soon.
2005-09-18 Jan Hubicka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* calls.c (flags_from_decl_or_type):
Target: sparc64-sun-solaris2.9
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050917/configure --enable-threads
--enable-multilib --with-cpu=v9 --with-tune=ultrasparc sparc64-sun-solaris2.9
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050917 (experimental)
sparc% /usr/local/bin/cpp test.c
# 1
;
foo (p, q);
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /home/ryan/bin/gcc -v -Wp,-traditional-cpp small.c
Reading specs from /home/ryan/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.5/specs
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/ryan --enable-languages=c
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.5 20050923 (prerelease)
/home/ryan
--- Additional Comments From segalemb at usp dot br 2005-09-23 19:12
---
Subject: Re: failure in gcc
I and another person searched carrefully the source code and there
is no repeated data commands.
Sergio
Citando pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- Additional Comments From tj at laurenzo dot org 2005-09-23 19:20
---
I have submitted a patch to fix this bug to the gcc-patches mailing list. The
URL of the message is: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg01496.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9861
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
19:27 ---
Confirmed, only a 3.4 regression.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From segalemb at usp dot br 2005-09-23 19:27
---
Subject: Re: failure in gcc
I and another person searched carrefully the source code and there
is no repeated data commands.
Sergio
Citando pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
19:28 ---
This works for me on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24039
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
GCC host
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
19:45 ---
Can you add -v and give the output?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24039
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-09-23 19:46
---
Beginning of the -fdump-tree-all diff before and after patch.
-- before/s-arit64.adb.00.expand 2005-09-23 20:01:11.0 +0200
+++ after/s-arit64.adb.00.expand2005-09-23 19:41:23.0
--- Additional Comments From heas at shrubbery dot net 2005-09-23 19:57
---
Subject: Re: cpp segfaults when a non-existent include is encountered
Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 07:45:59PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org:
Can you add -v and give the output?
Sure.
sparc% gcc-bin -v
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
20:02 ---
-dH but there is a better way to get a backtrace.
use
gdb --args /usr/local/libexec/gcc/sparc64-sun-solaris2.9/4.1.0/cc1 -E -quiet
-v -D__arch64__
-D__sparcv9 test.c -mcpu=v9 -mtune=ultrasparc
--- Additional Comments From heas at shrubbery dot net 2005-09-23 21:23
---
Subject: Re: cpp segfaults when a non-existent include is encountered
Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 08:02:17PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org:
-dH but there is a better way to get a backtrace.
use
gdb --args
--- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2005-09-23 21:35
---
I can't explain it, but on today's mainline, this bug does not appear. I'm
going to commit the smaller test case (... make_k ...) from above to
libmudflap/testsuite. If this test fails, please post an attachment
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
21:35 ---
Subject: Bug 19319
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 21:35:17
Modified files:
libmudflap : ChangeLog
Added files:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
21:53 ---
Can you give the output of env before setting LANG?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From heas at shrubbery dot net 2005-09-23 21:56
---
Subject: Re: cpp segfaults when a non-existent include is encountered
Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 09:53:33PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2005-09-23 21:58
---
patch committed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
21:58 ---
Subject: Bug 23084
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 21:58:42
Modified files:
libmudflap : ChangeLog mf-hooks2.c
Log message:
There is a gcc 2.95.3 compiler bug where inheriting from a base class with a
private 'operator delete' (and its matching partner 'operator new') complains
and bails. Privitizing class specific operator new/delete pair is a common idom
to prevent freestore allocation. This is fixed in later version
--- Additional Comments From richy at fatkid dot org 2005-09-23 22:02
---
Created an attachment (id=9797)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9797action=view)
baseopdelete.ii
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24046
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-09-23 22:03 ---
still ICEs with current mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20128
--- Additional Comments From richy at fatkid dot org 2005-09-23 22:03
---
% gcc -v
Reading specs from
/opt/third-party/depot/Linux-2.4c2.2-i686/gcc-2.95.3/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.3/specs
gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)
--
--- Additional Comments From richy at fatkid dot org 2005-09-23 22:04
---
Created an attachment (id=9798)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9798action=view)
baseopdelete.cpp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24046
--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2005-09-23 22:05
---
PR 19870. Although these patches are largeish, they have been tested in HEAD for
some time and should be pretty safe. They are needed for OO.org.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24018
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
22:05 ---
Yes 2.95.3 is 4 years old and have not been maintined for about 4 years now.
This was fixed in 3.0 which also stoped being maintained for 3 years.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
22:10 ---
Hmm, I still cannot reproduce this with LANG set to nothing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24039
--- Additional Comments From heas at shrubbery dot net 2005-09-23 22:18
---
Subject: Re: cpp segfaults when a non-existent include is encountered
Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:10:12PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org:
Hmm, I still cannot reproduce this with LANG set to nothing.
I
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
22:26 ---
Hmm, I get only warning for this code:
t.cc:10: warning: base class class Foo has a non-virtual destructor
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22406
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
22:34 ---
Note did you post your patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13005
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
