https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |3dw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83803
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Forgot compiler info:
ed@ed-VirtualBox:~$ ./bin/bin/gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./bin/bin/gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ed/bin/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43101
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43101&action=edit
nocloseparen.f95
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83237
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |3dw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83120
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
In my regen of the testcases, I clobbered some dg-extra-options or something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 42635
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42635&action=edit
Patch with regenerated testcases for all. tr1 and std.
2017-11-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
in other news I've switched to boost to test this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
My last comment is nuts. I was thrown by the fact that GSL, against which I've
been testing, and the Carlson papers that form the basis if the implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83025
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 42628
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42628&action=edit
patch...
enable_if with is_class_v.
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42627
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42627&action=edit
Example showing error. Compile wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 41198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41198&action=edit
Testing a patch...
I'm testing the following:
2017-04-13 Ed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 41079
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41079&action=edit
Correct sign of negative arg tgammaq.
Basically,
return (x >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I concur with this solution.
I can make a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66689
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Well, for whatever reason, TR29124 and C++17 chose the - in front of \nu.
As long as we document and warn I think this isn't a defect.
I'll dig through the docs and get back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 01/20/2016 11:46 PM, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
>
> --- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 01/19/2016 10:19 PM, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
>
> Bug ID: 69371
> S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60858
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |3dw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |3dw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
After the fix for PR61389 goes in we'll get:
[ed@localhost tr2]$ /home/ed/bin/bin/g++ -std=gnu++11 -Wpedantic -c
test_pr44317.cpp
test_pr44317.cpp:7:17: warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I need a tool like PROCESSING_REAL_TEMPLATE_DECL_P except for specializations
in that it is true only for the most recent or latest or innermost declaration.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Add a dependency: 44317
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
At least it's closely related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33085
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33085&action=edit
Basic patch for C error messages in C++
This needs building and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Do you want me to merge my variadic macro language and your final whole-string
version (I had started on a %s solution too ;o))?
Or are you on a roll?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Here is a shot at the language of variadic macro arguments in macro.c:
Index: macro.c
===
--- m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58155
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33053
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33053&action=edit
Patch to not warn if skipping.
I still need a testcase or two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Put this and it works.
if (PROCESSING_REAL_TEMPLATE_DECL_P() || processing_specialization)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
In typeck.c/check_literal_operator_args
Make this change:
- if (processing_template_decl || processing_specialization)
+ /*if (processing_templat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61648
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |3dw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 06/28/2014 10:03 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
>
> --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 06/28/2014 10:03 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
>
> --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 06/27/2014 05:39 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
>
> --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33026&action=edit
patch_from_hell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33022
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33022&action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ...
I think I got it.
Don't m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33021
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33021&action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ..
I think I got it.
Don't m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33019
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33019&action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ...
I think I got it.
Don't m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #13 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 33020
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33020&action=edit
Patch 58781, 59867, 60249, ...
I think I got it.
Don't m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 06/25/2014 01:45 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
>
> --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 32792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32792&action=edit
Better patch with test case.
2014-05-13 Ed Smith-Rowland <3d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Note to self: you DO need to take care of char...
void
operator "" _t(const char)
{
}
#define QUOTE(s) #s
int
main()
{
QUOTE('"'_t);
QUOTE('\''_t);
QUOTE('\\'_t);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I'm pretty sure I have my arms around this one.
Two questions:
1. Any ideas on how to make testsuite cases? Any examples of looking at
preprocessed files in the te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
--- Comment #16 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Sorry for the noise. I reported a dupe not this bug.
My question on permissions still stands though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
--- Comment #15 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I agree. My examples are working.
Unfortunately, my account seems to not have the permissions to close a bug. I
am a maintainer.
Any ideas how I can get such permissio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #11 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
This may be related to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781 -
another decltype user-defined literal bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Right now, -std=c++1y means anything after c++11. Does anyone have an idea
about what happens when C++14 and these other TSen actually come out?
I guess I was thinking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59867
--- Comment #8 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I put this in a while back because it looked like it was going into C++14. I
jumped to gun. Unfortunately, I am not on a place where I can look at this
until Tuesda
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59531
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Also, we should throw when pos > size() rather than pos >= size().
Spinning new patches and testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59530
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I mistakenly took cases for string which must be null terminated.
I think we'll just remove those lines from the testcases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53683
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |3dw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48014
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42825
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57640
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
OK, it took me a while to remember this (even though I put it in myself).
By default, g++ -std=c++11/1y intercepts numeric suffixes for C++11
user-defined literals.
By d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Strangely, head works: http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/CnsddYRxUohlCGF1
Although mine still gets the error.
I did something that might have helped for 4.9. If I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC| |3dw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34881
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 11/09/2013 06:02 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34881
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Q; Is this a regression?
A: No.
See http://ideone.com/8JS3Yf
This is gcc-4.8.1 (needed a space between "" and _s but still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31061|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 31061
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31061&action=edit
Busybox showing that the passed in string to the operator is OK.
W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
So I'll post this patch to gcc-patches. Thanks.
In other news, people are thinking about a bitops library:
https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
This is wrong. Testing a patch...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
The const qualification of the first parm and the number of elements are wrong.
I'm testing a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Hristo,
Thanks for finishing your thought.
So if i have:
template
void
operator""_foo
{
ChatT arr[]{str...};
}
U"\x1\x10001\x10002&quo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58072
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 30604
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30604&action=edit
Patch c_parse_error to catch and describe user-defined literal toke
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Created attachment 30603
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30603&action=edit
Patch triggering a range of bad errors.
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 08/02/2013 01:47 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
>
> --- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
No, I remember now. This code *cannot* be right.
With the addition of user-defined literals in C++11 and DR1473
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
I think I need to test for keyword in addition to testing for macro in
libcpp/lex.c
I'll look at this.
I'll also look at getting a better error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57640
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 30317
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30317&action=edit
Add declarator_p to checks to trigger warning.
Testing this fully but
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Since we added literal operators to the standard library I noticed that
if you explicitly call a std literal operator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Bug #: 56821
Summary: Unable to overload with references to 'this'.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56430
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2013-02-22
22:33:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 29526
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29526
Patch with better test case.
Added checks for new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56430
Bug #: 56430
Summary: In __airy: return-statement with a value, in function
returning 'void'.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56216
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2013-02-06
04:39:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 29362
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29362
Patch including testcase and other cleanups.
This p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56216
Bug #: 56216
Summary: TR1 bessel functions bomb at x == 0!
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2013-02-03
17:40:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 29343
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29343
Patch including testcase.
Here is a small patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
Bug #: 56193
Summary: ios_base should replace operator void* with explicit
operator bool in C++11 onwards.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55582
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28882|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55582
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-12-05
13:18:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 28882
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28882
Patch
This patch lexes "string"XYZ user-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55582
Bug #: 55582
Summary: [C++11] Unable to define string user-defined literal
without leading underscore.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #19 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-28
03:05:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 28814
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28814
Patch.
Here is a final patch for this.
Ulti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
22:18:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
21:52:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> Invoke with gnu++0x:
> // { dg-options -std=gnu++0x }
>
> Invoke with new flag:
> //
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
20:20:27 UTC ---
OK, g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C will fail with the patch to control GNU
literal parsing. i.e. this behavior in intended.
The purp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #18 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
13:07:00 UTC ---
I added a bullet for this flag in gcc-4.8/changes.html.
How does one close a bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #16 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-12
17:48:29 UTC ---
Thanks, So If there are several ChangeLogs in the tree to get updated which one
do I put in the svn commit? Or does it matter?
Also,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28617|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #13 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-06
17:54:31 UTC ---
The patch tests clean on x86_64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-05
04:55:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 28617
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28617
Patch to implement flags allowing gnu suffixes to b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #11 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-05
04:50:20 UTC ---
Here is a patch that should work. it passes on x86_64 linux.
I would like to get this in for 4.8 if possible.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-10-15
21:25:23 UTC ---
So maybe we can enable by default for -std=c++1y, etc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-10-15
21:08:27 UTC ---
So what should these flags look like?
-fno-complex-literals
-fno-fixed-literals
Or should I use -W?
Should -std=c++11, etc. set th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-10-01
18:47:33 UTC ---
If I remember correctly, we are supposed to parse compiler-specific extensions
before UDLs - i.e. The compiler extensions get dibs.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ja
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #16 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-06
17:40:27 UTC ---
Thank you for your comments.
I was trying to follow the style of enum that I saw in the vicinity of the code
I was editing. I was not able to d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27054|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-06
04:52:13 UTC ---
I made the warnings on by default. Any opinion on whether I should have made
them depend on OPT_Woverflow instead?
I guess I thought the warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-05
19:30:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27103
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27103
Patch including testcases - warn and only when necessary o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #8 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
18:29:45 UTC ---
I think it's actually (-3)_w. The tokenizer would pick the - up and pass -3
along.
The result of applying a literal operator may not be num
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
17:06:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 27054
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27054
Test case for overflow warnings.
This test case should
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
