https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #30 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 15 21:08:59 2014
New Revision: 216287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-15 Daniel Krugler
* testsuite/20_util/common_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #29 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #28)
> Something is going wrong here: the bug is closed as fixed, but if I try to
> enable in 20_util/common_type/requirements/sfinae_friendly_1.cc the lines
> which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ali.baharev at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #25 from Marc Glisse ---
(not a complete fix)
r200821 | glisse | 2013-07-09 17:55:49 +0200 (Tue, 09 Jul 2013) | 9 lines
2013-07-09 Marc Glisse
PR c++/53000
gcc/cp/
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Preserve xva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10
11:47:20 UTC ---
Better reverting the LWG 2141-related bits. Only those of course!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #23 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-10
11:45:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> The patch is already in, of course. In hindsight, I think we shouldn't have
> bundled the SFINAE bits with addressing LWG 2141, which, I realize now,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10
11:43:00 UTC ---
I'm taking care of these reversion bits: just few lines in
sfinae_friendly_1.cc, besides the removal of std::decay and that line in
typedefs-1.cc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10
11:09:32 UTC ---
I see. Let's do that at your ease, then. But let's do it ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-10 11:08:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
It is more than that, because *my* own test-cases rely on the decay assumption.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10
11:06:26 UTC ---
If it's just matter of removing the std::decay call and tweaking that testcase,
I can do it now. Otherwise, I would say, please send a patch...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-10 11:04:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> The patch is already in, of course. In hindsight, I think we shouldn't have
> bundled the SFINAE bits with addressing LWG 2141, which, I realize now, is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10
11:01:59 UTC ---
The patch is already in, of course. In hindsight, I think we shouldn't have
bundled the SFINAE bits with addressing LWG 2141, which, I realize now, is
still in flux. At least w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #16 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-10 10:55:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> So we now have:
>
> common_type::type -> const int&
> common_type::type -> int
>
> ?
>
> If we are going with this resolution, I think the 1 argument
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10
10:44:57 UTC ---
Daniel: yes, please, if you could take care of that it would be great.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10
10:43:22 UTC ---
Why you believe it should "derive" from decay? It doesn't in C++11 and it
doesn't in the proposed resolution of LWG 2141.
Anyway, if you think there is something seriously wr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-10 10:42:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Thus, the library bits are done in mainline, right Daniel?
In regard to std::common_type, yes. But while making std::common_type
sfinae-friendly I searc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-04
15:57:07 UTC ---
*** Bug 54101 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #9 from İsmail "cartman" Dönmez
2012-05-20 14:50:46 UTC ---
ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-24
23:23:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> which way is the standards committee leaning?
The DR is young, there hasn't been a meeting since. There weren't many
objections to the proposed resolution, al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24
22:45:54 UTC ---
A good question from an semi outsider, which way is the standards committee
leaning? And is there a big disagreement about the defect report? I think if
there is a disagreement, then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-24
22:35:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> it's not obvious to me what the right fix is
> either so I'm not in a rush to change anything.
Actually, I now believe it is a good idea to rush (well, maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-24
21:48:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hmm, I guess you can forget this rant and go ahead (I am still posting it
> because there may be real arguments somewhere).
:) Thanks for the comments, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #1 from İsmail "cartman" Dönmez
2012-04-24 14:32:34 UTC ---
clang people have the following patch proposed as a workaround to this issue:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/www/libstdc%2B%2B4.7-clang11.patch?revision=154890
30 matches
Mail list logo
