On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Michael Renner wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.3
> Version: 1:3.3-2
> Severity: minor
> Tags: upstream
>
> It seems as if gcc-3.3 has some builtin "stuff" which causes wrong
> reports on shadowed declarations. These are the warnings caused by a
> build of the curr
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 05:10:38PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> tmpdir/sh1p.o(.text+0x0): In function `shlib_mainvar':
> /home/dave/binutils-2.14.90/src/ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/sh1.c:32: undefined
> refer
> ence to `mainvar'
> ...
> FAIL: visibility (hidden)
Fixing this one probably requires
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: minor
Tags: upstream
It seems as if gcc-3.3 has some builtin "stuff" which causes wrong
reports on shadowed declarations. These are the warnings caused by a
build of the current proftpd cvs tree:
---
main.c: In function `session_exit':
main.c:382: warn
Heiko Scheit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure this is a bug, but I thought that the inheritance should
> work also in this case (i.e. with overloaded functions).
This is not a bug. In standard C++, methods in a derived class hide
methods in the base class. Any C++ book will tell you so
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (test for excess errors)
WARNING: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C compilation fa
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C (test for excess errors)
WARNING: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C compilation failed to produce executable
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-2.C (test
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.eh/terminate2.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7348
# of unexpected failures
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7349
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libstdc++-v3 tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_byname.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_char.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_wchar_t.cc execution test
XPASS
> On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:51PM -0700, Randolph Chung wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -shared -fPIC -o blah.so blah.c
> > /tmp/ccC3fZeH.o(.text+0x1c): In function `call_foo':
> > : undefined reference to `foo'
>
> This should fix it. Would someone mind applying it for me? I'm in
> trans
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 195237 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR10890
Bug#195237: [PR 11053] ICE with kernel 2.4.20; sched.c
Forwarded-to-address changed from http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11053 to
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR10890.
> retitle 195237 [PR 10890] ICE with kernel 2.4.20; sched.c
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # submitted Debian report #195796 to gcc-gnats as PR 11062
> # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11062
> forwarded 195796 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11062
Bug#195796: libstdc++-v3 uses __attribute__((unknown)) again, instead of
__attribute__((__unknown__))
Noted your sta
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> > > It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
> > > submitted a bugreport with a patch against GCC, see [0]. It
Phil Edwards writes:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> > It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
> > submitted a bugreport with a patch against GCC, see [0]. It would be
> > helpful if this two-liner (the Mips, part, never mind the
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
> submitted a bugreport with a patch against GCC, see [0]. It would be
> helpful if this two-liner (the Mips, part, never mind the AIX part) could
> be applied
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-02 17:34 ---
Well, you're the ARM maintainer, so I suspect your analysis is much closer...
Also could be because
I'
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 3.3-2
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gdbm-1.8.3$ gcc -O2 -Wall -c gdbmopen.c
| gdbmopen.c: In function `gdbm_open':
| gdbmopen.c:15: warning: `lock_val' might be used uninitialized in this
function
| fstat (dbf->desc, &file_stat);
|
| if ((flags & GDBM_OPENMASK) == GDBM_READ
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-02 17:09 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
Bizzare. Your analysis does no
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10890
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3
Package: g++
Version: 2:2.95.4-14
Severity: normal
If you try to compile the program given below you will get the
following:
$ g++ test.cc
test.cc: In function `int main()':
test.cc:24: no matching function for call to `B::p1 (int)'
test.cc:16: candidates are: void B::p1()
So, the function B::p1
Package: libstdc++5-3.3-dev
Version: 3.3-2
Severity: important
This affects the header file c++/3.3/mips-linux/bits/atomicity.h on the
Mips target only. When included, it leads to trouble on sources that
declare or define "unused" in some manner. This is why the version with
double underscore is
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11054
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UN
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UN
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-02 10:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=4135)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4135&action=view)
re
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-02 10:29 ---
*** Bug 11057 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--- You are receiving this mail bec
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
31 matches
Mail list logo
