https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #33 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #32)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #31)
> > Can the bug be marked as resolved?
>
> WAITING on a reply.
From my point of view it is fixed
I guess since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #32 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #30 from Daniel Gutson ---
May I ask what's wrong with Andres Tiraboschi's solution approach?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #29 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 20 06:49:13 2015
New Revision: 229021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229021=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/67064
* semantics.c (force_paren_expr): Don't mess with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #27 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi ---
I forgot to say that the patch is for gcc 5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi from comment #26)
> Hi, I've read the bug report and I've made a patch in order to fix it.
> I've ran all the gcc tests and I have only one fail, but that fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andres.tiraboschi@tallertec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #25 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi ---
Created attachment 36338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36338=edit
The test that fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #26 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi ---
Hi, I've read the bug report and I've made a patch in order to fix it.
I've ran all the gcc tests and I have only one fail, but that fail is also
present in the original gcc. Anyway I've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #23 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #22)
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #21)
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #20)
FWIW, I've been listed in the MAINTAINER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #20)
I don't have a @gcc.gnu.org account. Should I simply send the attachment?
Sure.
Otherwise please assign this to me for me if it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #22 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot
com ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #21)
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #20)
I don't have a @gcc.gnu.org account. Should I simply send the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #15)
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
'-Wpedantic' does not cause warning messages for use of the
alternate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot
com ---
I created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67105
to treat that bug separately.
67064 (this bug) interferes with RTEMS in real life thus has a much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot
com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #18)
Please assign this to me. Thanks.
You need to login with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot
com ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #13)
It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #16 from Jens Maurer jens.maurer at gmx dot net ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
'-Wpedantic' does not cause warning messages for use of the
alternate keywords whose names begin and end with '__'. Pedantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
hannes_weisbach at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hannes_weisbach at gmx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #11 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
or simply -pedantic/-pedantic-errors :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot
com ---
I tried them all, and none of those flags reject a global variable declared as
register. I still think a separate issue should be filed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose the use of
this extension; perhaps that should be fixed while fixing this bug...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #13)
It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose the use of
this extension; perhaps that should be fixed while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com
---
Thanks Ville and Jens for looking into this.
I'll be able to fix this during next week, so if nobody is available to solve
this sooner, then please assign it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
C++11 rules about (x) have changed. If you use -std=gnu++98 you would get the
same behavior as before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de ---
Indeed -std=gnu++98 gets rid of this error. So this is working as intended for
C++11 and later? This is really nice in combination with defines and macros
that use ( )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #2)
Indeed -std=gnu++98 gets rid of this error. So this is working as intended
for C++11 and later? This is really nice in combination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com
---
Please discard my previous comment, I read too fast.
I'll do some debugging and get back with some analysis.
It seems that cxx_mark_addressable() is wrongly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #8 from Jens Maurer jens.maurer at gmx dot net ---
In general, x and (x) have the same meaning as per 5.1.1p6.
There are a few (spelled-out) exceptions, though.
One exception is inside a decltype-specifier, where decltype(e) is
34 matches
Mail list logo
