Hi Gerald,
I see it in the list already :) Thank you!
Sergey
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Sergey Ivanov wrote:
>> http://gcc.skazkaforyou.com
>>
>> location: Canada
>>
>> Please contact me about this mirror.
>
> Thanks, Sergey! I am adding this
> 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 is parsed
(the ':') you issue an error.
Maybe you should try to add the
Hello all.
This patch tries to implement the C++0x featue "Forward declarations
for enums" aka "opaque enum declarations":
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2764.pdf
Please note that this is a WIP, and as such lacks formatting,
comments, testcases, etc.
Except for the thin
> I'm looking at (besides input on what I've got currently):
So far I see it fine... except:
int len = TREE_STRING_LENGTH (strl);
should be:
int len = TREE_STRING_LENGTH (strl) - 1;
since the draft says "its length excluding the terminating null character".
Also, I had to c
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 20
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
> Well, yes, this is true but there is still the issue that
>
> void f() {
> for(class C{};;)
> ;
> }
>
> generates the message
>
> error: types may not be defined in range-based for loops
>
> when compiled with -std=c++0x and no patches and that is odd since this
> loop isn't range-based.
Oh
On 20 September 2010 17:33, NightStrike wrote:
>
> Ok, so it took a while to eventually find out that cygwin still
> malfunctions with -j, and I get lots of "fork() blows because it can't
> figure out how to find ubiquitous resources" errors. However, I
> eventually got this to finish:
>
> http://
On second reading of the C++0x draft in cannot find any reason of what
the new type in range-fors should not be allowed.
Maybe someone can read it differently?
Regard.
Rodrigo
On 20 September 2010 20:19, Rodrigo wrote:
>> Well, yes, this is true but there is still the issue that
>>
>> void f() {
>> for(class C{};;)
>> ;
>> }
>>
>> generates the message
>>
>> error: types may not be defined in range-based for loops
>>
>> when compiled with -std=c++0x and no patches and
Hi all,
I'm done with the implementation of customizations for the 3.6.2
Bugzilla installation. The test installation, which is based on a copy
of the GCC Bugzilla database (snapshot taken on September 9), is live at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/.
Please test it, and file bugs related to miss
I just wanted to say thanks for implementing this.
Being able to forward declare enums will make dependency breaking in legacy
code much easier in many real-world cases.
Thanks again!
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rodrigo
Ri
>> The easy solution would be to remove the assignment to
>> type_definition_forbidden_message and then check for this case
>> particulary.
>
> cp_parser_type_specifier_seq could return some indication of why the
> parsing has failed or whether it has parsed a declaration. This is
> much more usefu
2010/9/20 Frédéric Buclin:
>
> Have fun testing the new Bugzilla,
Oops, I didn't realise that changes to the test installation get
emailed to gcc-bugs and to the users who reported the bug or are CC'd
on it, but that raised a couple of possible bugs.
I've filed http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/sh
Le 21. 09. 10 01:18, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> Oops, I didn't realise that changes to the test installation get
> emailed to gcc-bugs and to the users who reported the bug or are CC'd
> on it
Yeah, it's a production-ready installation, with all features enabled.
:) Only bugs filed in the Bugzill
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 20 September 2010 17:33, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so it took a while to eventually find out that cygwin still
>> malfunctions with -j, and I get lots of "fork() blows because it can't
>> figure out how to find ubiquitous resources" e
On 21 September 2010 01:06, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
>>> The easy solution would be to remove the assignment to
>>> type_definition_forbidden_message and then check for this case
>>> particulary.
>>
>> cp_parser_type_specifier_seq could return some indication of why the
>> parsing has failed or whethe
17 matches
Mail list logo
