[Bug c++/20746] Incorrect return value for covariant return function returning null ptr

--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2005-04-04 17:37 --- Could you tell me which gcc level has the fix? thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746

[Bug c++/20747] New: Incorrect return value for covariant return function returning null ptr

FIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20747

[Bug c++/20746] New: Incorrect return value for covariant return function returning null ptr

FIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746

[Bug c++/20123] mangled name of typeid doesn't encode cv-qualifer.

--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2005-02-21 19:37 --- For function parameters, the cv-qualifers should not be mangled. I suspect GCC treates this typeid as a function, thus ignoring the encoding of cv-qualifers. At least, the C++ ABI is not clear in this

[Bug c++/20123] New: mangled name of typeid doesn't encode cv-qualifer.

Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20123

[Bug c++/19630] Program hangs when compiling the testcase with -m64 option.

--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2005-01-25 21:08 --- Created an attachment (id=8068) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8068&action=view) testcase Command to reproduce the problem: g++ -m64 test.cpp a.out -- http://gcc.gnu.org/b

[Bug c++/19630] New: Program hangs when compiling the testcase with -m64 option.

: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19630

[Bug c++/19448] Different value representation for bitfield width exceeding its type size.

--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2005-01-17 15:20 --- Did you change the bitfield width to 17 in the testcase? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19448

[Bug c++/19448] Different value representation for bitfield width exceeding its type size.

--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2005-01-14 20:10 --- You are right, I was using linux and darwin two different compilers. In thse two situations, the gcc results are both right. I have another question for you for the same testcase: if initializing the

[Bug c++/19448] Different value representation for bitfield width exceeding its type size.

--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2005-01-14 18:21 --- Created an attachment (id=7960) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7960&action=view) testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19448

[Bug c++/19448] New: Different value representation for bitfield width exceeding its type size.

exceeding its type size. Product: gcc Version: 3.4.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com C

[Bug libstdc++/18684] static member function not defined in std::locale::facet class

--- Additional Comments From yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com 2004-11-29 22:47 --- The point that I am trying to make here is the definition of _S_get_c_name() is not in the STL header file, neither in the libstdc++ libarary. For example, I can still use the following example to get the

[Bug c++/18684] New: static member function not defined in std::locale::facet class

unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: yanliu at ca dot ibm dot com CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18684