https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org ---
"mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> I'm going to prepare the porting_to bit
Thank you for doing that!
> then I think we should close this bug.
FWIW, I agree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org ---
Thank you for reporting this bug.
Please find my comments below,
"y.gribov at samsung dot com" a écrit:
> Prologue seems to poison words at frame_shadow_base + { 0, 4, 8, 12,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55766
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-12-23 17:01:11 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> Dodji, can you have a look to this?
Sure, I am looking at it and will be posting comments to PR c++/55663
ins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55311
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-12-22 16:09:18 UTC ---
A candidate patch for this was proposed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01361.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52343
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-12-22 16:08:25 UTC ---
A candidate patch for this was proposed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01312.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #10 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 17:18:00 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> The idea seems good. It would also handle comment #4 testcase.
Yeah, and I think it would be a step in the directio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #9 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 17:05:57 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Hum, I am not sure why the macro unwinder avoids unwinding if the
> macro comes from a system-header. If a warni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 16:34:11 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> On the other hand, let's consider:
> pr55252.c:
>
> #define bar 256
> #include "pr5525
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-19 16:17:20 UTC ---
> I think this his how the macro expansion was designed to work: It
> shows the location of the token that triggered the error.
Yes. And there are cases where t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-16 12:57:37 UTC ---
I candidate patchlet has been submitted for this at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01375.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
--- Comment #14 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-15 13:52:18 UTC ---
"mattyclarkson at gmail dot com" a écrit:
> @Dodji, thanks for fixing this :)
You are welcome. Sorry for the delay.
> What release will this be in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
--- Comment #9 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-27 07:59:12 UTC ---
A candidate patch has been sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02472.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54955
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-26 17:42:44 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini
> 2012-10-26 13:31:33 UTC ---
>
> Thanks Dodji!
You are welcome. :)
A candidate patch was propo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-26 15:13:10 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> Dodji, are there any chances you can look into this
> issue? The alias decls seem determinant.
Sure. Sor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #15 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-09 21:33:00 UTC ---
> --- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
> 20:43:11 UTC ---
>
> The patch fixes the problem for cris-elf with no regressions in test-suit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #14 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-09 21:28:44 UTC ---
I have submitted the patch to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00914.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-09 14:08:20 UTC ---
I can reproduce it now. I guess I shouldn't look at bugs around
midnight or something.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-08 22:23:25 UTC ---
"hp at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Just configure for --target=cris-elf and "make all-gcc" to produce
> f951.
So I did this on my system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-08 14:26:37 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> Dodji, time to ping? ;)
Right: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00766.html.
:)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-08 12:06:48 UTC ---
Sorry Michal for getting to your comment this late.
"ethouris at gmail dot com" a écrit:
> Looks nice. Is that a big deal if you also make a standa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54401
--- Comment #1 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-09-28 15:43:34 UTC ---
A candidate patch was sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01906.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54719
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-09-26 14:41:43 UTC ---
"dehao at google dot com" a écrit:
> Could you help verify if this problem is solved by
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29028
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-09-21 13:02:15 UTC ---
A candidate patch has been sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01540.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54372
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-09-20 14:13:28 UTC ---
A candiate patch was sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01456.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53609
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-09-20 08:48:09 UTC ---
A candidate patch for this has been sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01436.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54309
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-08-20 12:10:27 UTC ---
I think this is the same problem as PR c++/53540 for which a candidate
patch was sent to the gcc-patches mailing list [1].
So unless I am mistaken, I am marking this bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-08-16 22:18:36 UTC ---
A candidate patch was sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg0.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-08-16 19:11:01 UTC ---
> I think it's valid, CC'ing Dodji for confirmation.
I agree this is a bug. I am looking into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #20 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 21:11:16 UTC ---
"stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com" a écrit:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
>
> --- Comment #19 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #18 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:18:34 UTC ---
> --- Comment #13 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com com> 2012-07-24 10:03:05 UTC ---
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
> w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #17 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:15:43 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini
> 2012-07-24 10:13:24 UTC ---
> Thanks Steven for looking into this!
Indeed, thank you Steven!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #16 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:15:15 UTC ---
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
>
> --- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #16 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:15:15 UTC ---
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
>
> --- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #15 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 16:30:33 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini
> 2012-07-23 13:46:43 UTC ---
> Dodji, just in case isn't clear
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53463
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-06-04 19:57:31 UTC ---
Hans-Peter and Greta,
Could you please test trunk and, if the commit above fixes the issue for
you, close the bug please?
Thank you in advance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-05-30 07:34:17 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Well, we already have pragma system_header, we could extend it with an
> optional
> parameter.
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53459
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-05-25 08:37:05 UTC ---
> The typedef has been there as kind of static assertion.
> IMHO it would be better to replace it with
> extern char check_count[(N == 2 || N == 4) * 2 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #11 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-05-24 20:30:10 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
>> With the current infrastructure, I fear we cannot re-process the format
>> string *after* the initial pre-pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53459
--- Comment #1 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-05-24 18:43:52 UTC ---
Right, and there is:
#elif (GCC_VERSION >= 4005) && defined(__ALTIVEC__)
right before the offending line, which explains why I haven't seen the
bootst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #9 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-05-24 18:38:40 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> So either one keeps track of all source locations of all "interesting"
> characters within strings, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #28 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-04-09 16:19:15 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Of course, it needs some fine-tuning to avoid repetitions, but this is
> a problem with the locations given by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #27 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-04-09 16:04:46 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Dodji, are you planning to propose to enable -ftrack-macro-expansion
> by default in GCC 4.8?
Wow, what a timing!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-03-31 17:02:48 UTC ---
A candidate fix was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01993.html for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-01-05 23:09:22 UTC ---
A candidate fix has been submitted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00276.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51541
--- Comment #1 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-01-05 16:58:29 UTC ---
A candidate fix has been posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00256.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #15 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-01-02 12:01:45 UTC ---
> It would be very helpful to get this into 4.6.3 too if it's safe
Sure thing. I am currently testing the patch on 4.6. Thanks for the
head-up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #10 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-12-03 20:55:15 UTC ---
> What I don't understand is how, according to your analysis, this
> worked before revision 149722 and how that patch could possibly
> change the beha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51180
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-12-02 10:15:06 UTC ---
"jason at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> I'm surprised that it doesn't just work already; writing t2 already
> works, doing the substitution ought
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51289
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-28 20:12:38 UTC ---
A candidate patch for this was submitted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg02488.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50852
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-21 14:43:25 UTC ---
A candidate patch was sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01859.html for this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1131
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-18 19:50:42 UTC ---
"jason at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-18
> 13:11:48 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51191
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-17 23:48:12 UTC ---
A candidate patch was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01856.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51194
--- Comment #1 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-17 17:33:28 UTC ---
I could not reproduce the ICE with svn trunk revision r181378. Here is
what I get:
$ cat -n test.cc
1#include
2#include
3
4template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51036
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-14 15:21:50 UTC ---
Interesting. In any case, I hardly find this issue related to my patch,
like what H.J.'s bissecting (thanks for that H.J. by the way!) is
suggesting. So a m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #18 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-09 12:05:08 UTC ---
"redi at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Created attachment 25746
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25746
> make use of alias-d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #17 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-09 12:04:18 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from Benoit Jacob
> 2011-11-07 21:57:18 UTC ---
> \o/
>
> You rock!
Thank you, Benoit. :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51032
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-08 18:57:50 UTC ---
A smaller reproducer:
$ cat -n test.cc
1template
2struct A {
3template using B = U*;
4int a;
5};
6
7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #12 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-11-05 23:47:57 UTC ---
"vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch" a écrit:
> --- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente
> 2011-10-31 16:06:41 UTC ---
> using the patch of comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #14 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-21 18:40:41 UTC ---
>> If the patch in comment #10 regstrap on *-linux-*, I think it could be
>> committed, then monitor regress on
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50759
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 11:48:24 UTC ---
> It looks like support for @quotation/@end quotation pairs needs adding to
> texi2pod.pl.
That, or I could just use @smallexample/@end smallexample as in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 09:26:31 UTC ---
> I can give you access to my (slowww) G5 if you mail me your ssh key.
Thank you for giving me access to the box.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 09:15:31 UTC ---
FWIW, this is maybe related to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50801 that got fixed in
commit r180239
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45333
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 08:57:06 UTC ---
> So we can track the origin of the instantation to the macro definition, but
> then we don't show where the macro is invoked from, which is shown without
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45333
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 08:25:20 UTC ---
Yes, it's related. With the infrastructure that is in right now, the
results are not super for template instantiate backtraces though:
$ cat -n test.cc
1#d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50801
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-20 08:05:18 UTC ---
Patch posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01821.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-17 18:59:05 UTC ---
Looking at gcc-testresults, it looks like your x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
target bootstrapped fine with revision 180099. So this failure seems to
be ia32 specific, at least
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-17 18:28:46 UTC ---
I am testing this patch, maybe you could help with your big fast iron?
Thanks.
diff --git a/gcc/input.c b/gcc/input.c
index 41842b7..8138a65 100644
--- a/gcc/input.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50758
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-17 15:56:05 UTC ---
"dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" a écrit:
> I guess that revision 180090 is a similar fix that should work (I'll
> have the answer in a couple hours;-).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50758
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-10-17 15:26:54 UTC ---
Are you still seing this with commit r180090?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-09-30 11:41:14 UTC ---
The comment was posted in another month:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00536.html
Another hint at why we need a better patch/comments tracker :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-09-30 10:26:29 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> Out of curiosity, does the posted patch fix at once *all* the issues mentioned
> in the Description?
Yes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #27 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-09-08 20:55:19 UTC ---
As a follow-up, I have posted a patchlet[1] to enable this warning whenever
-Wall or -Wunused is used. This patchlet would be applied when the fix
for PR preprocessor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #23 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-07-25 14:29:15 UTC ---
> --- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-24 22:49:32 UTC ---
> Just as a note, wanted also to add that if I understand correctly the
> (temporary?!?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
--- Comment #21 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-07-25 11:17:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-24 22:37:39 UTC ---
> By the way, an obvious positive additional testcase, involving templates,
> wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #9 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-06-07 22:21:43 UTC ---
After the discussions we've had elsewhere, I think DW_AT_name should
contain only the simple template name (with no template arguments) when
it refers to a tem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-31 11:16:16 UTC ---
"jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com" a écrit:
> --- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil
> 2011-05-30 08:44:43 UTC ---
> Another issue is with DMGL_VERBO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-27 17:27:43 UTC ---
In the example below, I could reproduce a case of difference between the
mangled name and the content of DW_AT_name.
Basically the content of the DW_AT_name property of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49047
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-27 09:09:35 UTC ---
A candidate patch was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02044.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49047
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-25 15:15:03 UTC ---
The candidate patch below might do what you want.
Note that, constructors/destructor functions are cloned. The cloning
process yields a DIE tree. So the destructor K
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #16 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-04 21:28:49 UTC ---
Indeed. I haven't re-checked the initial test case; I have only
considered the reduced one. Sorry, my bad. I am looking into this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-03 20:15:50 UTC ---
A candidate patch was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00219.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45383
--- Comment #13 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-04-27 12:32:09 UTC ---
I have committed those in 4.5 and the changes can be browsed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=eb9cc5c6f
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45383
--- Comment #12 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-04-27 11:37:43 UTC ---
> Dodji, is there any reason not to apply this fix to 4.5 as well?
I was waiting to see how the initial fix would behave in 4.6 and it felt
below my radar. But then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45383
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2010-11-11 08:24:20 UTC ---
A candidate fix has been proposed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01129.html
--- Comment #24 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2010-01-29 15:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE with
pointer-to-member-function argument in template function with -fipa-sra
So this commit r156351 won't fix the root cause this issue, but I
believe it prevents the compiler
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2010-01-12 21:49 ---
Subject: Re: Aggregate initialization requires copy
constructor
Le mar. 12 janv. 2010 à 20:58:01 (-), bangerth at gmail dot com a écrit:
> As a matter of etiquette (I think we've had
> this conver
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-12-24 12:00 ---
Subject: Re: ICE when resolves overloaded functions
> --- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-23 23:00
> ---
> Dodji, is this just a duplicate of PR38600?
Yes, I
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-12-15 11:48 ---
Subject: Re: [c++0x] ICE with pointer-to-member-function
decltype argument in template function
> FYI, I have checked, however, that the last posted patch for 42225
> doesn't fix this one at once.
To be h
--- Comment #17 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-11-16 22:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] typedef doesn't fully
expose base class type
Patch sent to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg00813.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #14 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-11-13 07:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] typedef doesn't fully
expose base class type
> Dodji, this looks like something that the template typedef access control code
> you added for 4.5 could deal wi
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-10-29 17:09 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/lookup/extern-c-redecl[3,4] .C
scan-assembler fails on darwin
> --- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-10-29 14:36
> ---
> Without test the part &#x
--- Comment #5 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-10-29 07:22 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/lookup/extern-c-redecl[3,4] .C
scan-assembler fails on darwin
Thanks for testing.
How about this one ?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/extern-c-redecl3.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-10-28 20:53 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/lookup/extern-c-redecl[3,4] .C
scan-assembler fails on darwin
Does this patch qualify as obvious ?
/bin/bash: call : commande introuvable
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/extern-c
--- Comment #16 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2008-10-24 10:56 ---
Subject: Re: debug info for class2 in g++.dg/other/unused1.C
requires -femit-class-debug-always
jason at redhat dot com a écrit :
> Could you (Dodji) try building libstdc++ with -femit-class-debug-always,
> a
--- Comment #15 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2008-10-21 10:15 ---
Subject: Re: debug info for class2 in g++.dg/other/unused1.C
requires -femit-class-debug-always
jason at redhat dot com a écrit :
> --- Comment #14 from jason at redhat dot com 2008-10-20 19
--- Comment #1 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2008-10-10 07:40 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.4 regression] ICE with __FUNCTION__
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org a écrit :
[...]
I can't reproduce this on trunk's revision 140900
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37789
96 matches
Mail list logo
