https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schuchart at icl dot utk.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb2a7f80a98de3febefbb32b1e4898062bdb6af8
commit r12-6022-gbb2a7f80a98de3febefbb32b1e4898062bdb6af8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asif_bahrainwala at hotmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ab1176667734bd6de20833f8d263c03a418c452
commit r12-702-g6ab1176667734bd6de20833f8d263c03a418c452
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #18)
> ever since Nathan's r11-2876. As this commit mentions, should we enable the
> maybe_save_operator_binding / push_operator_binding mechanism for all
> templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Sidwell ---
ah, the logic to squirrel away lookups on a magic attribute list, records that
nothing is found. But we don't preserve that negative lookup when injecting
these lookups into the parameter binding. So we'l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tonvandenheuvel at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea_iob at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niklas at nolte dot dev
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And the testcase from PR 61161:
struct T {
template void f(const T &v) {
0 << v;
}
};
namespace N {
struct X {};
struct Y : X {};
void operator<<(int, const X&) {}
}
void operator<<(int, c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Testcase from PR65336:
extern "C" int puts(const char*);
struct ostream {} cout;
template struct A{ T t; };
struct B{};
struct C : public B{};
ostream& operator<< (ostream& out, const B&)
{ puts("
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thibaut.lutz at googlemail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-13
12:10:58 UTC ---
Essentially in gcc-english at least, wrong code means wrong assembly code, what
the back end emits. Normally for wrong C++ code we say invalid code, hard to
confuse.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler
2013-04-13 11:55:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> and G++ calls the global one, returning the wrong result, so it's wrong-code
OK, I misunderstood the meaning of "wrong-code": I thought that was intended t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-13
11:52:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > The example in PR 56943 gives a wrong-code example
>
> Could you explain why? It looks valid to me. According to my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2013-04-13 11:26:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The example in PR 56943 gives a wrong-code example
Could you explain why? It looks valid to me. According to my understanding, the
free operator+ overload
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
25 matches
Mail list logo
