On 07/09/2018 09:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 08:57:25AM +0200, David Brown wrote:
I am always wary of saying there might be a compiler bug - usually it is a
bug in the user code. But this time I am very suspicious. The example here
comes from a discussion in the comp.la
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 08:57:25AM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> I am always wary of saying there might be a compiler bug - usually it is a
> bug in the user code. But this time I am very suspicious. The example here
> comes from a discussion in the comp.lang.c Usenet group.
>
> Here is the code I
I am always wary of saying there might be a compiler bug - usually it is
a bug in the user code. But this time I am very suspicious. The
example here comes from a discussion in the comp.lang.c Usenet group.
Here is the code I have been testing:
unsigned char foo_u(unsigned int v) {
retu
George R Goffe writes:
> This error message appears because line 500 of the configure script has an
> improperly(?) formed if statement:
>
>
> 500 if ls -dL / >/dev/null 2>&1; then
This statement is perfectly correct. It is testing the exit code of
executing the ls command. Your proble
Hi,
I have been trying to find the cause of a problem that I'm having building gcc
from the repository.
In the logs I've been seeing the following message:
239 + ../gcc/configure --prefix=/usr/lsd/Linux --verbose
--with-mpc=/usr/lsd/Linux --with-mpfr=/usr/lsd/Linux --with-gmp=/usr/lsd
Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Dodji Seketeli wrote:
That, and [dcl.typedef]/6 says:
In a given scope, a typedef specifier shall not be used to redefine
the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to a different
type.
So, I tend to think that GCC is right here.
Right *where*?
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Piotr Wyderski
wrote:
> Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>
>> That, and [dcl.typedef]/6 says:
>>
>> In a given scope, a typedef specifier shall not be used to redefine
>> the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to a different
>> type.
>>
>> So, I tend
Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> That, and [dcl.typedef]/6 says:
>
> In a given scope, a typedef specifier shall not be used to redefine
> the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to a different
> type.
>
> So, I tend to think that GCC is right here.
Right *where*? In case of the s
Jiri Palecek a écrit:
> Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Wyderski
>> wrote:
>>> The following snippet:
>>>
>>> class A {};
>>> class B : public A {
>>>
>>> typedef A super;
>>>
>>> public:
>>>
>>> class X {};
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> class C : public B {
>>>
>>>
Ulf Magnusson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Wyderski
wrote:
The following snippet:
class A {};
class B : public A {
typedef A super;
public:
class X {};
};
class C : public B {
typedef B super;
class X : public super::X {
typedef super::X super;
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Wyderski
wrote:
> The following snippet:
>
> class A {};
> class B : public A {
>
>typedef A super;
>
> public:
>
>class X {};
> };
>
>
> class C : public B {
>
>typedef B super;
>
>class X : public super::X {
>
> typedef super::X super;
The following snippet:
class A {};
class B : public A {
typedef A super;
public:
class X {};
};
class C : public B {
typedef B super;
class X : public super::X {
typedef super::X super;
};
};
compiles without a warning on Comeau and MSVC, but GCC (4.6.1 and
4.7.1) fai
I think I may have hit a bug where an implicit copy constructor can't
construct an array of a subtype with a user-defined copy constructor.
I can't see any hits searching for "invalid array assignment" on the
bug repository.
I messed up submitting my last bug so I thought I'd ask here first for
con
13 matches
Mail list logo
