--- Comment #3 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2010-04-08 03:18
---
Subject: Re: G++ is too aggressive in optimizing away bounds checking with
enums
> Except that the conversion is defined to produce an unspecified
> value, not undefined behavior. A strict reading o
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2008-04-26 00:01
---
Subject: Re: "type qualifiers ignored" warning
> This warning is correct, and not really bogus as the qualification is ignored
> on the return value here even though not explicitly written by
--- Comment #18 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2008-04-02 18:34
---
Subject: Re: Pure virtual method body omitted from template
> You are absolutely right as long as there is no multithreading and no
> dangling pointer. Sure. The thing is: If it's called, someth
--- Comment #17 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2008-04-02 18:31
---
Subject: Re: Pure virtual method body omitted from template
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 12:15:53 yuriry at gmail dot com wrote:
> My question is slightly off topic but I am really interested in the purp
--- Comment #12 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2008-04-02 13:31
---
Subject: Re: Pure virtual method body omitted from template
> No, it is not. And that's because this pure virtual method never gets called
> explicitly.
The point I meant to make but failed
--- Comment #10 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2008-04-01 14:44
---
Subject: Re: Pure virtual method body omitted from template
> Or did you mean that the function definition is in the TBase header file? If
> so: It is.
Yes. Since the class declaration must be visibl
--- Comment #8 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2008-04-01 12:52
---
Subject: Re: Pure virtual method body omitted from template
> thanks for the clarification. I should have realized it myself, though. I
> solved the problem in another way, but out of pure curiosity: H
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-22 22:20
---
Subject: Re: Duplicate error message about abstract class
> I think this is because we clone the dtor.
Possible. If we take away the base class, then the error message appears
only o
--- Comment #7 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-09-25 17:44
---
Subject: Re: bogus escape
> I don't know about Wolfgang.
I was just confused, not realizing that we weren't in regular C code. Andrew's
(as usual) brief comment didn't help the situ
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-09-22 22:14
---
Subject: Re: -m128bit-long-double and printf don't mix
> and came up with some of it on my own, but at the same time I thought that
> each
> object file would/could be marked with how it was co
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-09-19 02:43
---
Subject: Re: parallel v3: do not use __builtin_alloca,
use VLA
> shouldn't using __extension__ fix the warning/error for VLAs?
Yes, that's the other option. I guess Benjamin also wanted to find
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-05-09 23:46
---
Subject: Re: Failure to diagnose taking address of register
variable
> > for that case, C99's clause 6.3.2.1/3 says that that's possible for
> > register storage class arrays but that t
--- Comment #14 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-05-01 02:39
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] miscompilation
of sigc++-2.0 based code with -fstrict-aliasing
> > typedef typed_slot_rep typed_slot;
> > typed_slot *typed_rep = sta
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-02-11 06:22
---
Subject: Re: ignores explicit qualification
> --- Comment #4 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2007-02-11 06:04 ---
> Thank you. Is that obscure or what :-)
No, I think that was pretty straightf
--- Comment #11 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-26 22:59
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] -Wreturn-type warns about more
than what the documentation says
> I think this was done on purpose.
It is contrary to what the documentation says. I think it also doesn
--- Comment #8 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-26 21:41
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] -Wreturn-type warns about more
than what the documentation says
> just assume people are less confrontational than it might appear. :-)
True. Gaby is probably willing
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-26 21:11
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] -Wreturn-type warns about more
than what the documentation says
> You assumed? Did I do something wrong?
I don't know. Possibly not. But the people who've been
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-26 19:58
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] -Wreturn-type warns about more
than what the documentation says
> Why am I in the CC list?
I put you there. I assumed that the bug was introduced with your recent
work
--- Comment #12 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-12-14 16:08
---
Subject: Re: gcc doesn't unroll nested loops
> Very interesting, thanks... so does it mean that gcc did loop unrolling after
> all? (sorry, I'm a newbie when it comes to compiler/assemb
--- Comment #14 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-11-14 18:37
---
Subject: Re: Specialization of inner template using outer template argument
doesn't work
> It is not a regression as far as I can tell.
True. However it does produce wrong code.
W.
--
--- Comment #13 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-10-23 04:01
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Internal compiler error on
boost mpl test/apply.cpp
So maybe the question should be a different one: if it is difficult and/or
potentially risky to backport the patch mentioned
--- Comment #11 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-10-23 03:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Internal compiler error on
boost mpl test/apply.cpp
> Technically, I think it would be feasible to backport the patch. However,
> because that patch eliminates a GNU ext
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-10-17 01:49
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with
templates + friend
> TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM_TEMPLATE_DECL
If I didn't know better, this would sure sound like something written
under the i
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-10-12 01:25
---
Subject: Re: bad break/continue is not dectected until the
gimplifier
> Yes but this semantics anyalsis is done while gimplifing and not while
> parsing.
But I get the message also when using -fsynta
--- Comment #17 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-09-07 02:29
---
Subject: Re: What should be value of complex(1.0,0.0)
*= -1?
> If you have IEC 60559 at hand, and it explicitely says, as normative, that 0 *
> -finite = -0 then, I agree that this is a bug. However,
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-09-05 11:51
---
Subject: Re: -fprofile-generate/use and C++
anonymous namespaces don't mix
> And you can work around with -frandom-seed=0
Nope, since that means that symbols in anonymous namespaces are the same
ev
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-06-07 22:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in copy_to_mode_reg
> Bangerth, why did you change the Priority? That is the job of the Release
> manager.
Fair enough -- I'll defer to his judgment if he wo
--- Comment #15 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-16 00:10
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] Rejects old-style using
declaration
> For the original submitter: ARM-style access declarations (e.g.,
> "I::B::foo;") are deprecated in current C++. The
28 matches
Mail list logo
