--- Comment #1 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-05-11 18:50
---
(mine)
--
fabien dot chene at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail
FIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fabien dot chene at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-u
--- Comment #14 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-05-11 16:43
---
Fixed (committed by Jason).
--
fabien dot chene at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-05-11 16:41
---
Fixed in rev 158918, committed by Jason.
--
fabien dot chene at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-05-10 21:12
---
This is valid code, the use of the temporary value-initializes the const
member.
--
fabien dot chene at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-05-09 22:09
---
mine...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25994
--- Comment #4 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-05-09 22:09
---
mine...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30195
--- Comment #11 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-05-02 16:36
---
Hi,
Sorry for introducing this bug, thanks for the analysis, but unfortunately,
this is the wrong fix.
The change reverted wasn't accidental as it is redundant with the check do
--- Comment #3 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-28 19:14
---
patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01759.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43890
--- Comment #2 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-26 09:58
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> possibly caused by the changes for Bug 25811
Confirmed, please assigned me on this regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43890
--- Comment #2 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-22 13:16
---
Mine...
--
fabien dot chene at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #5 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-20 22:50
---
patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01199.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43719
--- Comment #12 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-20 22:49
---
updated patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01148.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42844
--- Comment #5 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-20 22:47
---
patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01269.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29043
--- Comment #1 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-19 20:27
---
hmm, not sure this is invalid. This is the same than
struct A { int const i; };
void f() { new A() }
(Nevertheless, commeau doesn't compile both cases.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fabien dot chene at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC
--- Comment #4 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-19 20:03
---
mine ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29043
--- Comment #3 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-14 13:34
---
Subject: Re: uninitialized const member incorrectly accepted,
using an array
2010/4/11 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org :
> Use a bugzilla account with your @gcc.gnu.org address.
Am I supposed to h
--- Comment #11 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-12 20:45
---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00604.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42844
--- Comment #1 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-11 18:04
---
related to PR 25811.
Mine. (it should be great if someone could grant me the access to the 'assign
bug' checkbox).
--
fabien dot chene at gmail dot com changed:
What
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fabien dot chene at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet
--- Comment #11 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-31 13:46
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Thanks. I can't test it now but that looks better.
>
> Just below your new code I see this error:
>
> error ("uninitialized const in % of %q#T",
--- Comment #9 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-31 12:20
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (N.B. your email to gcc-patches gives the wrong PR number in the subject.)
>
> This reject the following valid program:
>
> struct X {
> X() : c(0), r(c)
--- Comment #7 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-31 07:06
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > > Nevertheless, can you confirm that it is valid C++03 ?
> >
> > I mean invalid, sorry.
>
> Yup :-)
>
> It is inv
--- Comment #10 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-30 16:47
---
> reduced testcase for this one:
>
> struct A {};
>
> void f()
> {
> A const a;
> }
I misspoke, let's keep the original testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42844
--- Comment #9 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-30 14:11
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> you should have the option "Accept bug" below the comment box.
> I've done it for you
I've just seen it since you did it for me (thanks), but I still can&#
--- Comment #7 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-30 11:51
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Subject: Re: const variable requires initializer / no
> explicitly declared default constructor
>
> > I'm working on this bug
>
> Could you please
--- Comment #5 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-30 11:40
---
I'm working on this bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42844
--- Comment #5 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-30 10:10
---
> Nevertheless, can you confirm that it is valid C++03 ?
I mean invalid, sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25811
--- Comment #4 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-30 10:07
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > is it still invalid in c++0X ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > 5.3.4.15 has been revamped, and I no longer find a motif to reject such
> >
--- Comment #2 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-03-30 08:22
---
is it still invalid in c++0X ?
5.3.4.15 has been revamped, and I no longer find a motif to reject such code.
I think the following code is also invalid, according to 8.5.6 (c++03) / 8.5.8
(c++0x):
struct A
--- Comment #6 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2008-09-05 13:22
---
There is a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg00474.html
--
fabien dot chene at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
32 matches
Mail list logo
