--- Comment #9 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:55
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:56
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:56
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #25 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:57
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:57
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:57
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:58
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-22 13:58
---
Won't work on it for a long while.
--
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-07
14:57 ---
Patch withdrawn due to overlooking default function argument and default
template argument. No nice solution is found yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-07
14:57 ---
Patch withdrawn due to overlooking default function argument and default
template argument. No nice solution is found yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-07
14:58 ---
Patch withdrawn due to overlooking default function argument and default
template argument. No nice solution is found yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22
11:42 ---
Also fixed in GCC 4.0.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13830
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22
11:43 ---
Also fixed in GCC 4.0.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15453
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
17:42 ---
Also fixed in 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression]|[3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression]
|Acess failure in accessing |[DR515] Access failure in
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19
17:07 ---
Patch using new approach for 4.1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01992.html
(Note this is part 4 in a series, earlier parts are also required)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19
17:09 ---
Patch using new approach for 4.1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01992.html
(Note this is part 4 in a series, earlier parts are also required)
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
11:21 ---
From 14.7.2 [temp.expl.spec] paragraph 2:
An explicit specialization shall be declared in the namespace of which the
template is a member,
or, for member templates, in the namespace of which
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
11:46 ---
Some comment: This cp_binding_level::names and how it is used are internal to
GCC.
Too bad -fdump-translation-unit relies on it. Names are placed in
cp_binding_level::names
only if it may be needed
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
12:37 ---
The code is invalid. In the section 14.8.2 [temp.deduct] paragraph 2 of the
standard
does not include creating a class with invalid base class. Examples of valid
SNINF cases:
- Attempting to create
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
12:41 ---
Confirmed. I think the declaration
int swap(A, A);
should be accepted. Could be something wrong with the type computation
to select overloaded function.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
14:11 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
14:36 ---
Yup, string literal should have type 'const char *'.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-14
12:00 ---
Patch for 4.1 submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01322.html
It requires another patch from me:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01320.html
Won't fix in 3.4
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-08
08:12 ---
Confirmed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-08
08:13 ---
Got it
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |lerdsuwa
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
15:28 ---
The TYPE_NO_ACCESS_CHECK_P is there because we check
access on each tsubst TYPENAME_TYPE, regardless whether
the typename is actually appear in the code or it come from a typedef.
The patch was only
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
15:30 ---
This is a stage 2 project. Likely to be fixed in a month or two.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16617
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19772
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
13:55 ---
Here is the relevant section of the standard (TC1,
section 9.4.2, paragraph 4):
If a 'static' data member is of 'const' integral or 'const' enumeral type,
its declaration in the class definition can
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20
14:00 ---
Here is the error message:
pr20549.C: In function 'void popSlot()':
pr20549.C:12: internal compiler error: in resolve_overloaded_unification, at
cp/pt.c:9579
Please submit a full bug report
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19
12:27 ---
Fixed in 3.4/4.0/4.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19
14:15 ---
Fixed in 3.4/4.0/4.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18
15:08 ---
Now the code is rejected by GCC in 4.0 branch and mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18
16:39 ---
Got it. Mainline ICE on corrected code. 4.0 ICE on both original and corrected
one.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
14:14 ---
Mainline is fixed. No error message is produced which is
the correct behavior. Will recheck 4.0 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
16:05 ---
Cannot reproduce it now on 4.0. I think it's already fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19948
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
16:09 ---
ICE no longer reproducible.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
Bug 16995 depends on bug 19948, which changed state.
Bug 19948 Summary: [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class
'declaration', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in pushtag, at
cp/name-lookup.c:4658
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19948
What|Old Value
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-14
14:40 ---
Fixed in the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
Bug 4403 depends on bug 1016, which changed state.
Bug 1016 Summary: [DR 166] friend class declarations not observing namespace
rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 16995 depends on bug 1016, which changed state.
Bug 1016 Summary: [DR 166] friend class declarations not observing namespace
rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 13830 depends on bug 1016, which changed state.
Bug 1016 Summary: [DR 166] friend class declarations not observing namespace
rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 20234 depends on bug 1016, which changed state.
Bug 1016 Summary: [DR 166] friend class declarations not observing namespace
rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 19403 depends on bug 1016, which changed state.
Bug 1016 Summary: [DR 166] friend class declarations not observing namespace
rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 17652 depends on bug 1016, which changed state.
Bug 1016 Summary: [DR 166] friend class declarations not observing namespace
rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 12944 depends on bug 1016, which changed state.
Bug 1016 Summary: [DR 166] friend class declarations not observing namespace
rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-14
14:46 ---
Fixed in the mainline. Won't fix in 4.0 branch since the GCC 3.4.x
behavior is also wrong. The error message present in 4.0 is useful
to point out that the code need to be updated because GCC 4.1
--
Bug 16995 depends on bug 19403, which changed state.
Bug 19403 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] name lookup is broken with friends
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19403
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-14
14:53 ---
Fixed in the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
Bug 16995 depends on bug 4403, which changed state.
Bug 4403 Summary: incorrect class becomes a friend in template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4403
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 9783 depends on bug 4403, which changed state.
Bug 4403 Summary: incorrect class becomes a friend in template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4403
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 17652 depends on bug 4403, which changed state.
Bug 4403 Summary: incorrect class becomes a friend in template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4403
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 12944 depends on bug 4403, which changed state.
Bug 4403 Summary: incorrect class becomes a friend in template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4403
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 12944 depends on bug 9783, which changed state.
Bug 9783 Summary: [DR433] Can't forward reference class in argument to
templated method.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9783
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-14
14:54 ---
Fixed in the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20234
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-13
14:18 ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01283.html
It's the same as in attachment. I retested it and add
the explanation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1016
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-13
14:21 ---
The fix is the same as PR1016. GCC 3.4 and earlier compiles but
doesn't have correct behavior. So this should not be treated as
regression.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-13
14:25 ---
Look like caused by my changes to pushtag.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-13
16:47 ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01294.html
This is simply the patch in the attachment to this PR retested with
explanation added.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-13
16:48 ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01294.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9783
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-12
12:40 ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01208.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-12
12:41 ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01207.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-12
15:13 ---
The patch that fixes this bug is the same as the one
in PR1016. Closing it as a duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1016 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-12
15:13 ---
*** Bug 20234 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-11
16:19 ---
Got it.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |lerdsuwa
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-11
16:27 ---
The diagnostic is missing due to calling lookup_name_real inside
cp_parser_lookup_name without the LOOKUP_COMPLAIN flag. Too bad
we cannot just add this flag because this will cause duplicate
error
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-12
06:18 ---
It's xref_tag/push_tag bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-12
06:21 ---
Patch in progress.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
15:11 ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01028.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20381
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
11:35 ---
Looking at it.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-07
14:24 ---
Yes, this is a bug in GCC 3.3.x and earlier versions.
Bug fixes to GCC 3.3.x branch is now limited to certain
regression. So this bug will not be fixed there.
The latest released branch, GCC 3.4.x, does
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-07
14:29 ---
Confirm as a bug. It's still present in the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-06
17:16 ---
Fixed in 3.4 and 4.0 branches.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
15:46 ---
Fixed in the mainline. Other branches are being tested and will be
fixed once I finish retesting the patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03
16:28 ---
I think NS::C should remain hidden so the declaration:
C c;
should be OK.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-28
06:22 ---
If you want a work around, simply use this in the first 'friend'
declaration:
friend class util::persistent_object_manager;
There is still uncertainty about whether name from 'using'
declaration
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:12 ---
Fixed in the mainline by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg02230.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-12
16:32 ---
Fixed in 3.4/4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-12
16:33 ---
Fixed in 3.4/4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-12
16:34 ---
Probably won't fixed in 3.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|lerdsuwa at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24
14:27 ---
There is a defect report DR259 about this issue:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#259
According to the DR, the original standard mentions that
the instantiation:
template
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
16:03 ---
Patch for 3.4 and 4.0 submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01491.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14479
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
16:04 ---
Patch for 3.4 and 4.0 submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01491.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19487
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
16:25 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
14:47 ---
Fixed in 3.4 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
14:51 ---
Fixed in 3.4 branch and mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
14:40 ---
Patch for 3.4 here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01120.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
15:21 ---
Related to PR14479.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
14:35 ---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01006.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
14:37 ---
Patch submitted that fixes the ICE:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01007.html
Queuing access checking until instantiation time will be addressed
in 4.1. That issue has already been
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
16:19 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Why a new tree node? We are moving away from using trees also for container-
type data structures. You can write a normal structure with the node that
must
be access-checked
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-13
14:52 ---
So B's ctor uses the global A without the friend declaration and with the
friend declaration the local injected A? Sometimes the holy standard confuses
me a bit.
No. With or without friend
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-13
14:55 ---
It is already described in changes.html:
When declaring a friend class using an unqualified name, classes outside
the innermost non-class scope are not searched ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12
10:46 ---
The bug is simply incorrect error message logic.
The 'protected' comes from the point that 'A::i' is
declared, not the actual access computed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12
10:49 ---
Patch in progress.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19311
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12
10:50 ---
May be fixed together with PR19311.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16617
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
