AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: 4ernov at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41448
--- Comment #1 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2009-09-23 15:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=18638)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18638&action=view)
The preprocessed file of the program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41448
--- Comment #2 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2009-09-23 15:47 ---
Console output of g++ -v -save-temps -o gcc_sort -Wall -lQtCore -DQT_SHARED
-I/usr/include/QtCore gcc_sort.cpp:
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.3.2/configure --prefix=/usr
--- Comment #3 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2009-09-23 15:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=18639)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18639&action=view)
Source code that triggers the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41448
--- Comment #5 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2009-09-23 16:04 ---
Oh, I've tried to find info how the implementation manages NaNs but didn't find
any clear info. So is it the expected behavior? And is it safe to use
std::stable_sort for vectors with NaNs or I was just lucky?
--- Comment #7 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2009-09-24 18:39 ---
Is there anything in C++ Standard concerning this case?
Maybe it's more preferrable to throw exception or something like this.. Now it
seems to make memory leak in the operated vector.
The output is like this:
***
--- Comment #10 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2009-10-02 08:41 ---
Yeah, I see..
But anyway, thank you for discussing it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41448
rity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: 4ernov at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http:
--- Comment #1 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2010-02-27 22:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=19981)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19981&action=view)
Test log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43203
--- Comment #3 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2010-02-27 23:11 ---
I'm sorry, I didn't write the title correctly, CXXFLAGS is the same value as
CFLAGS in my case, i.e. CXXFLAGS is "-march=core2", too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43203
--- Comment #5 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2010-02-27 23:37 ---
Thank you for the problem description.
But didn't completely understood: does it indicate any faults in my gcc build
with this flags or is it just testsuite details and it's harmless?
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #7 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2010-02-27 23:54 ---
Hmmm.. so it's also safe to build it with optimization, to say, -O2?
Honestly, I was seriously convinced that it's dangerous because of big warnings
in LFS etc. And I turned everything off every time..
--- Comment #9 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2010-02-28 00:14 ---
Paolo, thank you very much for informing me and sorry for some off-topic, but
it's so important for me, because obviously I was really confused. Thank you.
And what about this report? Should we close it?
--
--- Comment #11 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2010-02-28 00:21 ---
Ok, thanks
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43203
14 matches
Mail list logo
