--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 10:28
---
It's way down
#1 0x004f94ac in dependent_type_p (type=0x2aea625cd180)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c:15553
#2 0x0043e9fe in make_typename_type (context=0x2aea625cd180,
nam
Dear GCC maintainers (and Martin in particular),
I have reason to believe that lam, which was uploaded to unstable to
use gfortran after this bug was found, is also affected by this bug,
from [1]. Could you confirm that this is the case?
Thank you.
Kumar
[1]:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi
Package: gij-4.3
Version: 4.3-20080202-1
Severity: normal
The following test program throws an IllegalAccessException with gij,
but works with Sun Java.
~$ gij InvokeAnnotationMethod
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalAccessException
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(libgcj.so.90)
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13
# TestNG annotations fail miserably
block 465326 with 466538
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-19 17:41]:
> I have reason to believe that lam, which was uploaded to unstable to
> use gfortran after this bug was found, is also affected by this bug,
> from [1]. Could you confirm that this is the case?
Definitely looks like it. The good news is tha
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:10:04PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-19 17:41]:
> > I have reason to believe that lam, which was uploaded to unstable to
> > use gfortran after this bug was found, is also affected by this bug,
> > from [1]. Could you confi
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13
> forwarded 466538 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35253
Bug#466538: gij-4.3: reflection on annotation objects throws
IllegalAccessException
Noted your statement that Bug
* Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-19 20:46]:
> That is good to know. What I wanted to confirm is that the bug will be
> fixed in the gcc version used for that build as well, which happens to
> be 4.3-20080202-1. Therefore, I guess I can request a give back only
> after an upload of gcc-4
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 17:50 ---
instantiate_type_decl calls tsubst on
chain >
nonlocal VOID file pr34950.C line 7 col 42
align 1 context
and as TYPE_DECL isn't TEMPLATE_DECL, it doesn't bump processing_template_decl
around the tsu
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in |[4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE
|svn boost math toolkit
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 21:21 ---
The problem comes when we deal with templates from non-template code. In this
case, we are substituting some parameters but not all into a function template
declaration, so we end up building up new typename types wi
--- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 21:45 ---
Incidentally, the error that 3.3 gave for the testcase in comment #8 seems to
be correct: after we substitute the explicit args into the two function
templates, we are left with one which still has an unbound argument
--- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 21:39 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> it may be better to bump processing_template_decl at a higher level, perhaps
> resolve_overloaded_unification.
This seems to be the approach taken in the partial ordering code, so it seems
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||35255
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu
--- Comment #21 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 22:13 ---
On second thought, the testcase seems to be well-formed; we should do partial
ordering and determine that the second template is more specialized than the
first.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34
--- Comment #22 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 22:53 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 19 22:53:07 2008
New Revision: 132455
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132455
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
--- Comment #23 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 22:54 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 19 22:53:25 2008
New Revision: 132456
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132456
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcj-4.3
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #466538
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR35253
# * remote status changed: (?) -> UNCONFIRMED
usertags 466538 + statu
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-defaults
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #462342
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR34950
# * remote status changed: NEW -> ASSIGNED
usertags 462342 - sta
--- Comment #24 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 04:48 ---
Fixed in all open branches.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 04:48 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 20 04:47:47 2008
New Revision: 132470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132470
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
--- Comment #25 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 04:48 ---
Subject: Bug 34950
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 20 04:47:28 2008
New Revision: 132469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132469
Log:
PR c++/34950
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unificat
23 matches
Mail list logo
