http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54665
Bug #: 54665
Summary: [C++11] template alias to template does not work
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
Matthew Woehlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mw_triad at users dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
--- Comment #12 from Matthew Woehlke
2012-11-01 17:47:04 UTC ---
Requires qt-devel installed, but has the benefit of being the exact issue I'm
having in production (on the chance it's something screwy about Qt...):
$ cat zero-as-pointer.cpp
#
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
--- Comment #13 from Matthew Woehlke
2012-11-01 17:56:49 UTC ---
...and with your example I do indeed get no warning.
Simplified test case:
$ cat zero-as-pointer.h
#pragma GCC system_header
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(void** = 0);
};
class Bar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55173
Bug #: 55173
Summary: GCC gives wrong location, and ignores -isystem, when
warning about default arguments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
--- Comment #19 from Matthew Woehlke
2012-11-01 23:04:42 UTC ---
Reported as bug 55173. I'm not going to claim to understand bug 43486
sufficiently to know it is the same issue, but if you are sure, please feel
free to close as duplicate.
ity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net
Created attachment 31538
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31538&action=edit
SSCCE showing the bug
Consider the follow
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net
Some coding styles specify that local variables that are not modified should be
marked 'const' in order (in theory) to allow for compiler op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59653
Matthew Woehlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55655
Bug #: 55655
Summary: cannot export specialized template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55655
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Woehlke
2012-12-11 21:06:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28930
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28930
example code
Here's a simplified concrete example. Since we are talking about correct
vi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55655
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Woehlke
2012-12-11 23:34:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Which symbols are hidden which you don't want to be?
ptr
> What do you mean "instantiation failed"? You get a warning but it works.
It fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #22 from Matthew Woehlke ---
Thanks for the patch. However, one thing I am not seeing is an easy way to
suppress the warning for a specific occurrence (a la [[clang:fallthrough]]).
Can that be added also? (Or is it there and I miss some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #27 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #26)
> Perhaps we could invent __builtin_fallthrough or some such.
Yes, I was expecting there would be some alternate spelling for cases where
C++11 attributes are no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #32 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #30)
> Does this mean that you propose a GCC extension which allows to write this?
>
> goto 5;
>case 5:
While I personally detest this syntax :-), I feel t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Woehlke ---
Can this *please* get fixed? This really hurts the ability to use
-Wzero-as-null-ptr in particular. See
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-45291 for an example of the pain this
causes.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net
"explicit" is a great tool for avoiding mistakes in the use of a class.
Unfortunately, programmers must remember to use it, and there is not p
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net
Consider the following code:
#include
struct X { ~X(); };
struct Y : X { ~Y(); };
std::unique_ptr f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> PR 58876
*Almost*, except I am proposing that -Wnon-virtual-dtor should trip even if X
does not otherwise have virtual methods. (Just why you'd be writing su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Matthew Woehlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mw_triad at users dot
sourceforge.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #3)
> Because it's not a bug.
>
> This is a totally valid scenario.
Valid in what way? I constructed a Y but arranged, probably by accident, that
its dtor is neve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #5)
> > Actually, this may be required for 'make_unique(new B)' to warn, since
>
> That's not how make_unique works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> No, really, that's not how make_unique works. You do not use 'new' with
> make_unique, that's the whole point [...]
D'oh, sorry :-). Not sure what I was thin
Component: libquadmath
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net
Target Milestone: ---
Many sources in libquadmath (and also libgo) contain the following notice:
Copyright (C) 1993
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119397
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Woehlke ---
To be clear, you are arguing that distributions of the software can entirely
omit the notice because the source code is not distributed? Has that been
tested in court, or has Sun Microsystems affirmed this
25 matches
Mail list logo
