--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-17 12:09
---
Yeah, the usual accessibility issue: in Santa Cruz I discussed that briefly
with Doug, he pretended to convince people that with extended SFINAE you can
implement trivially *any* introspection trait, then someb
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-17 12:10
---
Sorry, the last comment is for 40497.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-18 14:10
---
Created an attachment (id=19907)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19907&action=view)
Draft patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-18 14:11
---
Gaby, I just attached a draft patch which essentially does what submitter
requested, adds the two specializations. Shall we do this?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Remo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19
11:05:10 UTC ---
But see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01048.html. Thus, for the
time being, I'm going to use __int128_t and __uint128_t in the implementation
details: using the latter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-19 11:52:54 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Sep 19 11:52:49 2011
New Revision: 178969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178969
Log:
2011-09-19 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-25 20:57
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01912.html we are going to
have __int128 and unsigned __int128.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo dot carlini at oracle |
|dot com |
Assig
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-26 09:26
---
Certainly not a bug, at most an enhancement: in the current and future C++
Standards there is no mention of such types, of course.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Remove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |---
--- Comment #17 from Richa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
zerotype at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zerotype at yahoo dot c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
John Salmon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-25
20:23:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> If I can declare a variable of a non-standard extension-type with some
> compiler flags in effect, e.g., -std=c++11, then I should also be able
> to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |unassigned at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-25
21:35:57 UTC ---
Ah, a final punctualization in terms of general philosophy: I *suspect* that
some people don't fully realize that the *default* mode is -std=gnu++98 *not*
-std=c++98, thus ther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-25
21:39:48 UTC ---
Of course I meant "restricting to the non-strict mode", you got the point.
19 matches
Mail list logo
