Re: gcc home page
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26 April 2013 13:09, Jurgis Upenieks wrote:
>> I think that I have found a bug in gcc home page gcc-4.7 changes.
>> In C++ paragraph about explicit override control.
>> In example code, is it really struct, not class?
> Yes, that's valid C++, the example is fine.
I guess the alternative way to write this, using class instead of
struct, is the following (which needs an extra protected).
Should we go with this, Jonathan? What do you think?
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.137
diff -u -3 -p -r1.137 changes.html
--- changes.html11 Apr 2013 07:45:45 - 1.137
+++ changes.html2 Jun 2013 18:04:16 -
@@ -425,19 +425,20 @@ struct B
Thanks to Ville Voutilainen, G++ now implements C++11 explicit override control.
-struct B {
+class B {
+protected:
virtual void f() const final;
virtual void f(int);
};
-struct D : B {
+class D : B {
void f() const;// error: D::f attempts to override final B::f
void f(long) override; // error: doesn't override anything
void f(int) override; // ok
};
-struct E final { };
-struct F: E { }; // error: deriving from final class
+class E final { };
+class F: E { }; // error: deriving from final class
G++ now implements C++11 non-static data
member initializers.
Re: How am I supposed to verify gcc-4.8.0 download when you provide no .sig file?...
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Larry Evans wrote: > the verification command and result are: > > ~/download/gcc/4.8 $ gpg --verify --keyring ./gnu-keyring.gpg > ./gcc-4.8.0.tar.bz2.sig > gpg: Signature made Fri Mar 22 08:32:18 2013 CDT using DSA key ID C3C45C06 > gpg: Good signature from "Jakub Jelinek " > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the > owner. > Primary key fingerprint: 33C2 35A3 4C46 AA3F FB29 3709 A328 C3A2 C3C4 5C06 > ~/download/gcc/4.8 $ > > Should I be worried about the gpg: WARNING? Not unless you are paranoid. :-) This means that there is not path in the web of trust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust) between Jakub and you. That's not ideal in terms of security, but not a drama. Gerald
Re: gcc home page
On 2 June 2013 19:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 26 April 2013 13:09, Jurgis Upenieks wrote: >>> I think that I have found a bug in gcc home page gcc-4.7 changes. >>> In C++ paragraph about explicit override control. >>> In example code, is it really struct, not class? >> Yes, that's valid C++, the example is fine. > > I guess the alternative way to write this, using class instead of > struct, is the following (which needs an extra protected). Generally in that context protected access would be wrong, it would mean you can't call the virtual functions on the base class, which usually defeats the purpose of having virtual functions. To be equivalent to the original code you'd want 'public', but you'd also want to add it to the base classes, so that they are publicly-derived, but doing so adds additional keywords to the example that contribute nothing. > Should we go with this, Jonathan? What do you think? I think the example is fine as is and doesn't need to change.
gcc-4.9-20130602 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20130602 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20130602/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 199593 You'll find: gcc-4.9-20130602.tar.bz2 Complete GCC MD5=acad933b945cdd35725003647ea57ac6 SHA1=66c7f2d0778618659e555e1d79b69db0094828eb Diffs from 4.9-20130526 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.9 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
