Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Martin Sebor
On 10/04/2016 04:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments in calls to functions taking bool param

gcc-5-20161004 is now available

2016-10-04 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-5-20161004 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20161004/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Jason Merrill
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Zan Lynx wrote: > On 10/04/2016 02:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to >> be given in both the declaration and the definition: >> >> void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false); >> >> void foo(int x,

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Zan Lynx
On 10/04/2016 02:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to > be given in both the declaration and the definition: > > void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false); > > void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false) > { > } There is really no

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Martin Sebor
This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to be given in both the declaration and the definition: void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false); void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false) { } It seems strange that this is not allowed. The standard says "A default argum

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

2016-10-04 Thread Bill Seurer
On 10/04/16 10:38, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison between pointer and integer [-fpermissiv

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 4 October 2016 at 16:51, wrote: > >> On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 4 October 2016 at 16:41, wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Paul.Koning
> On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 4 October 2016 at 16:41, wrote: >> >>> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention >>> commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments >>> in c

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 4 October 2016 at 16:41, wrote: > >> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention >> commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments >> in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment >> along the

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

2016-10-04 Thread C Bergström
I'd +1 vote to send them a patch. I've had to do this for other compilers. If you need a hand, I can give you some tips on how to do that and also where to check if this has already been fixed. Thanks On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/04/2016 09:41 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

2016-10-04 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: > parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double > ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': > parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison between > pointer and integer [-fpermissive] >AssertThrow ((s.c_str()!='\

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

2016-10-04 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/04/2016 09:41 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Paul.Koning
> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention > commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments > in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment > along the lines of > > foo (1, 2, /*bar_p=*/true);

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

2016-10-04 Thread Marek Polacek
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: > > parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double > > ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': > > parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison betwee

Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

2016-10-04 Thread Bill Seurer
parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison between pointer and integer [-fpermissive] AssertThrow ((s.c_str()!='\0') || (*endptr == '\0'), ^ Wit

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/04/2016 04:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments in calls to functions taking bool param

Re: [PATCH MIPS] Work around Bash 4.2 bug

2016-10-04 Thread Nick Clifton
Hi Maciej, >>> The patch below works around the Bash 4.2 bug described at >>> . >> >>> * emulparams/elf32bmipn32-defs.sh: Shift quote of >>> "x$EMULATION_NAME" to the left to work around >>>

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 4 October 2016 at 12:55, David Brown wrote: > On 04/10/16 12:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: >>> On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to a

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 10/04/16 08:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 07:40:09AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 10/03/16 19:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments in calls to functions ta

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 07:40:09AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 10/03/16 19:48, Martin Sebor wrote: > >In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention > >commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments > >in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment >

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread David Brown
On 04/10/16 13:40, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 10/03/16 19:48, Martin Sebor wrote: >> In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention >> commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments >> in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment >> along the lines of >>

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread David Brown
On 04/10/16 12:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: >> On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention >>> commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments >>> in calls to functions taking bo

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 4 October 2016 at 12:39, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/04/2016 12:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 10/03/16 19:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment along the lines of foo (1, 2, /*bar_p=*/true); I like this if there's

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 10/04/2016 12:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments in calls to functions taking bool param

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: > On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: >> In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention >> commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments >> in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment >> along the lines

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

2016-10-04 Thread David Brown
On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: > In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention > commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments > in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment > along the lines of > > foo (1, 2, /*bar_p=*/true); > > I pointed