On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 16:05, Jakob Hasse via Libstdc++ <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > Hello, is there any update regarding the patch PR105387 for bug 105387? We've > been waiting for some time now, but the bugzilla bug is still open: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105387. If there is any issue > with the patch (besides the ones we discussed before), please let us know. If > there's no chance to integrate that patch, we would also like to know, to > make decisions on how to handle the patch internally.
Thanks for your patience. I'm going to push this patch. I've had to adjust the tests slightly, it should use 0 not nullptr so it can be tested with -std=c++98, and 18_support/execption_ptr is about std::exception_ptr not catching pointers, so is the wrong place for the new test. But I can take care of those and push it. > > Thanks, and All the Best, > Jakob Hasse > ________________________________ > From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 5:18 PM > To: Jakob Hasse <jakob.ha...@espressif.com> > Cc: libstd...@gcc.gnu.org <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org>; gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Anton Maklakov <anton.makla...@espressif.com>; > Ivan Grokhotkov <i...@espressif.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] libstdc++: fix pointer type exception catch [PR105387] > > [External: This email originated outside Espressif] > > On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 03:30, Jakob Hasse via Libstdc++ > <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > two weeks ago I submitted the second version of the patch PR105387 for the > > bug 105387. Now I added a pointer-to-member exception test just to make > > sure that it doesn't break in case RTTI is enabled. The test is disabled if > > RTTI is disabled. I didn't receive any feedback so far regarding the second > > version of the patch. Is there any issue preventing acceptance? > > Just a lack of time to review it properly. > > It's on my list. > > > > > > I ran the conformance tests on libstdc++v3 by running > > make -j 18 check RUNTESTFLAGS=conformance.exp > > > > Results for the current version (only difference is the added > > pointer-to-member test): > > > > Without RTTI before applying patch: > > === libstdc++ Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 14560 > > # of unexpected failures 5 > > # of expected failures 95 > > # of unsupported tests 702 > > > > Without RTTI after applying patch: > > === libstdc++ Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 14562 > > # of unexpected failures 5 > > # of expected failures 95 > > # of unsupported tests 703 > > > > With RTTI before applying patch: > > === libstdc++ Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 14598 > > # of unexpected failures 2 > > # of expected failures 95 > > # of unsupported tests 683 > > > > With RTTI after applying patch: > > === libstdc++ Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 14602 > > # of unexpected failures 2 > > # of expected failures 95 > > # of unsupported tests 683 > > > > Given that the pointer-to-member test is disabled when RTTI is disabled, > > the results look logical to me. > > >
