[Bug 305176]

2018-08-18 Thread Manu-gcc
(In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #31) > gcc should catch up. I thought Google employed some capable C/C++ engineers... -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/305176 Title: [PR2

[Bug 305176]

2018-08-18 Thread Manu-gcc
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #32) > (In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #31) > > gcc should catch up. > > I thought Google employed some capable C/C++ engineers... What I meant is that those engineers, if they exist, could help GCC "catch up" (whatever that means)... g

[Bug 305176]

2018-08-18 Thread Manu-gcc
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #33) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #32) > > (In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #31) > > > gcc should catch up. > > > > I thought Google employed some capable C/C++ engineers... > > What I meant is that those engineers, if

[Bug 305176]

2014-08-15 Thread Manu-gcc
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #28) > P.S. Some of the bugs I found were in parts of the code imported from > open-source projects, so it's not a problem that is specific to just Google. > If the assert problem could be addressed, adding warn_unused_result to trunk > libstdc++ would bene

[Bug 305176]

2014-08-15 Thread Manu-gcc
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #28) > Well, that did expose the 30 bugs above, but unfortunately I can't do that > permanently, because it also exposed this false positive: > >assert(v.empty()); > > where assert in NDEBUG mode expanded into > > static_cast(v.empty()); Isn't ass

[Bug 984577]

2012-10-15 Thread Manu-gcc
(In reply to comment #8) > Note: this is very old, I barely remember it. > > (In reply to comment #6) > > Sorry, I think your message is not easily understandable. I think you are > > trying to say that "the right hand side must be a pointer-to-member", > > No, I think I am saying: hello, this is

[Bug 984577]

2012-10-15 Thread Manu-gcc
Sorry, I think your message is not easily understandable. I think you are trying to say that "the right hand side must be a pointer-to- member", but this is not actually what your proposed message says. I like more clang's message: /tmp/webcompile/_28618_0.cc:4:11: error: right hand operand to ->