--- Comment #12 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 07:25 ---
The patch should use false instead of 0. These new fangled boolean types keep
messing me up.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24202
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You report
--- Comment #11 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 07:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=10096)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10096&action=view)
clear buffer_valid when clearing buffer
Untested patch for mainline which makes the testcase work.
--
wilso
--- Comment #10 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 07:19 ---
On mainline, this appears to be fixable with a one line patch.
We are failing in should_stack_file because we have a _cpp_file struct with
buffer=0 and buffer_valid=1. We call read_file which immediately returns
be
Package: java-gcj-compat-dev
Severity: normal
I just noticed that /usr/bin/rmic doesn't exist. It's handled through
alternatives but points to nowhere. I just did a dist-upgrade but I'm
not sure if this is a new problem or not. I also didn't keep a full
transcript of my dist-upgrade. :/ I hope
--- Comment #84 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-11-01 04:30 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 7:59 PM, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Geoff, it's not as simple as just marking throwable types,
--- Comment #83 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 03:59 ---
I agree Geoff, we should hold off on this for 4.1, and try to hit 4.2. If
things get solid sooner, maybe this can be reconsidered. Adding this patch to
4.0.x is out of the question, it has the potential to change too
High quality Caiilis available at
affordable price.
Only $3.99 per tabls which last you
36 hours of e rectiions
Try us out today...
http://de.geocities.com/Franky59260Mozes74025/
oJZof
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
--- Comment #82 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-01 02:21 ---
To clarify: I have unassigned myself from this bug because I don't consider
myself sufficiently competent in this area to evaluate all the possible trade-
offs of the issue and don't want to block in any way the work of kn
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
||do
--- Comment #81 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-10-31 23:29 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 2:45 PM, mueller at kde dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #80 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-31 22:
--- Comment #23 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:25 ---
Fixed for gcc-4.1. Won't fix for gcc-4.0.3.
--
wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #22 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 23:24 ---
Subject: Bug 17356
Author: wilson
Date: Mon Oct 31 23:24:36 2005
New Revision: 106297
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106297
Log:
Rewrite fix for PR 17356, fix for enable checking ada build fa
--- Comment #80 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-31 22:45 ---
- if its not safe for all architectures we'd already run into heaps of problems
because both libsupc++ and libgcc2 already include similiar pragmas.
- not hiding a symbols is better than the resulting issues when hiding a
--- Comment #79 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-10-31 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 10:37 AM, ismail at uludag dot org dot tr wrote:
> --- Comment #78 from ismail at uludag dot org dot
Can this bug be reproduced with upstream gcc-4_0-branch as of date 20051023,
which is what Debian's gcc-4.0 4.0.2-3 is based on?
If so, it should be reported upstream; upstream has several people who often
run automated binary regression searches and should be able to identify the
commit which
Has this been reported to the libstdc++ list upstream? It doesn't look like
it, and it's certainly their thing.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Insert famous quote here]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
--- Comment #78 from ismail at uludag dot org dot tr 2005-10-31 18:37
---
Paolo, this is surely a bug fix. Why can't it make it to 4.1 ? Waiting for 4.2
means that unpatched gcc's will suffer for more.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are receiving
--- Comment #77 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-31 16:59 ---
Thanks Benjamin! Indeed, if you want to take care of this entire issue, you
are welcome (just reassign)! In any case, I'm not sure whether it's suited
for 4.1, at this point...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #76 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 16:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=10085)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10085&action=view)
hidden visibility for __gnu_internal
Without per-namespace visibility attributes, this is what we will have to d
19 matches
Mail list logo
