A candidate fix has been proposed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01129.html
Patch posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01718.html
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes:
>>
>> $ ./cc1 -quiet test.c
>> While expanding macro OPERATE at test.c:2:8
>> While expanding macro SHIFTL at test.c:5:14
>> While expanding macro MULT2 at test.c:8:3
>> test.c: In function 'g':
>> test.c:13:3: error: invalid operands to binary << (have 'dou
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes:
> I find this output a bit confusing. I find clang's output clearer
> http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html.
I guess you are talking about the "automatic macro expansion" section of
that link?
>
> In fact, clang's output actually follows more closely what
Indeed. I am testing the patch below.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.c b/gcc/cp/decl.c
index 5eb389f..7c01ee2 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ static void store_parm_decls (tree);
static void initialize_local_var (tree, tree);
static void expand_static_init (tree, tre
Posted a patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01469.html
--
Dodji Seketeli
Red Hat
Le 01/09/2009 00:05, bangerth at gmail dot com a écrit :
> What does GDB currently say for the testcase shown in the initial report?
I think GDB doesn't know about the new type debug information added by gcc
yet. So it won't say anything. But I haven't test GDB HEAD. My reasoning
was that maybe w
