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 Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #31
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&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67064
* semantics.c (force_paren_expr): Don't mes
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 is
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 #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 attached
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&action=edit
The test that fails
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 #23 from Jason Merrill ---
(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 list in the past wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #22 from Daniel Gutson ---
(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 attachment?
>
> Sure.
>
> > Otherwise please as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill ---
(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 still possible.
Done.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Gutson ---
(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 your @gcc.gnu.org account to be able to ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Gutson ---
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 higher
priority, so I will address this bug fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
(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 keywords whose names begin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #16 from Jens Maurer ---
(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
> warnings are also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Gutson ---
(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 the use of
> > this extension; perhaps tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
(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 fixing this bug...
'-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen ---
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 #12 from Daniel Gutson ---
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 #11 from Ville Voutilainen ---
or simply -pedantic/-pedantic-errors :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Gutson
---
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 me.
Regarding the global register variables,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #8 from Jens Maurer ---
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 different
from decltype((e)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Gutson
---
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 called.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Daniel Gutson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.gutson@tallertechnol
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 do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(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 with defines and
> macros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
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 ( ) around its content.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++11 rules about (x) have changed. If you use -std=gnu++98 you would get the
same behavior as before.
34 matches
Mail list logo
