Hello!
It is my understanding that if a C++ function is declared as 'noexcept'
or is a destructor then compiler is required to add some code which will
catch any exceptions thrown by it unless the compiler can prove that no
exceptions will in fact be thrown.
If my understanding is correct, how ha
I just noticed that the C and C++ compiler output pointer types differently:
Consider
int i;
printf("%p", &i);
When compiled as C that gives the warning
format '%p' expects argument of type 'void *', but argument 2 has type 'int *'
but when compiled as C++ it gives the warning
format '%p' exp
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 05:01 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Mark Butler wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:22:45 PM UTC-6, H.J. wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Mark Butler wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> x32 is designed to replace ia32 where long is 32
Hello.
I noticed that (foo.cpp):
enum gaz { foo, };
generated a warning
foo.cpp:1:15: warning: comma at end of enumerator list [-pedantic]
when compiled with
g++ -std=gnu++0x -pedantic -fsyntax-only foo.cpp
According to n3290 this is acceptable so I tried to make this warning go
away.
This
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:39 +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> > This is quite unreadable and not very informative.
> Totally agree.
>
> > Here there are two problems...
> > snipped
>
> I think that you are taking the wrong approach: you call
> "cp_parser_range_for" with C++98 and then if such a loop
Hello.
At the moment compilation of a range-based for in c++98 fails with the
error message:
foo.cpp: In function 'int foo()':
foo.cpp:4:13: error: expected initializer before ':' token
foo.cpp:6:1: error: expected primary-expression before '}' token
foo.cpp:6:1: error: expected ';' before '}' to
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 08:44 +0800, yuanbin wrote:
> typedef struct CBase { int i; } CBase;
> typedef struct CT1 { EXTENDS(CBase) ... } CT1;
> typedef struct CT2 { EXTENDS(CT1) ... } CT2;
> ...
> typedef struct CTN { EXTENDS(CTN_1) ... } CTN;
> CTN t;
> t.i=1; //need not t.CTN_1CT2.CT1.CBase.i -
I recently ended up in a discussion about the -pthread flag at work and
when looking at the documentation I noticed that it is defined onlt for
SPARC and RS/6000/PowerPC.
Additionally -fopenmp and -ftree-parallelize-loops say they are only
supported on targets where -pthread are available.
Now, o
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 15:07 -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 02:40:44PM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:06:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > > > Hello.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:06:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I tried to do
> >
> > for (;; ({ break; }))
> > printf("Hello\n");
> >
> > and got
Hello.
I tried to do
for (;; ({ break; }))
printf("Hello\n");
and got an error message:
error: break statement not within loop or switch
when compiling it as C. Given that 9899:1999 §6.8.6.3 says that a break
statement only shall appear in or as a switch or loop body that is expected.
Hello.
I tried to look at fixing DR/354 but ended up lost in cp/parser.c
I have the following test case:
template struct S { };
S<(int*)0> s;
and end up with the following errors
:2:9: error: a cast to a type other than an integral or enumeration type
cannot appear in a constant-expression
:2
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 18:12 -0300, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
> 2009/8/11 Pedro Lamarão :
>
> > I've recently started my contributions to the gcc-in-cxx project, and
> > eventually decided on the qsort suggestion because it seems the
> > easiest one.
>
> Attached is a much more extensive patch replacin
On tis, 2008-05-13 at 15:03 +0100, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> With my current email setup and the volume of the gcc mailing list,
> it is not desirable to be to be subscribed to the gcc mailing list,
> I rather read the web archives.
I have read the list like that for years.
> However, this does not
On ons, 2007-08-29 at 16:42 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Take the following code sample:
>
>
> #define BREAK_GCC4_2
>
> template
> void foo(Op& op) { op(); }
>
> class My {
> public:
> static void myOp() { }
>
> void test() {
> #ifde
On fre, 2007-01-05 at 12:53 -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:27:35PM +0100, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > On fre, 2007-01-05 at 17:05 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Magnus Fromreide writes:
> > >
> > > But it can't unless
On fre, 2007-01-05 at 17:05 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Magnus Fromreide writes:
>
> But it can't unless you use an architecture that has cmpxchgl.
> cmpxchgl is a 486 instruction; if you compile for 386, we have to
> generate the call because there is no such instruction.
I got so happy when __sync_bool_compare_and_swap showed up in 4.1 but
now HEAD have changed the behaviour for me.
Earlier I got (gcc version 4.1.2 20061028 (prerelease) (Debian
4.1.1-19)) (Yes, vendor version, but gcc.gnu.org versions did the same)
lock
cmpxchgl%edx, (%ecx
On tor, 2006-09-21 at 23:10 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:54 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Peter,
> > Wouldn't we want something like...
>
> >
> > +#ifdef __powerpc64__
> > +unsigned long FindTopOfStack(unsigned long stack_start) {
> > +#else
> > unsigned long FindT
19 matches
Mail list logo
