--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #26 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-22 14:30 ---
Change state.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #25 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-22 14:29 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
--- Comment #24 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-05 22:34 ---
Subject: Re: dependent expressions in attributes
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-05 21:16 ---
> I'm surprised this is considered tricky. Seems to
--- Comment #23 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-05 21:16 ---
I'm surprised this is considered tricky. Seems to me you just stuff the
attribute away in the parse tree somewhere and pretend we've just read it
in during template instantiation. That's what we do with everything el
--- Comment #22 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-05 21:06 ---
Richard adding you. Any thoughts? We've been blocked on this for quite some
time. There are a large number of issues that would be resolved or that we
could try to make progress on if there was forward movement on this
--- Comment #21 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-05 21:03 ---
Richard adding you.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-28 03:38
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Jason, this is the bug I talked about briefly. Do you think
> the Redmond offsetof work is also applicable here?
Mind to share that?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-27 17:19 ---
Jason, this is the bug I talked about briefly. Do you think the Redmond offsetof
work is also applicable here?
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at redhat dot com 2004-10-19 06:23 ---
Subject: Re: dependent expressions in attributes
>Yes, but how do you force the compiler to ensure that the alignment of char foo
>[] is sufficient to placement-allocate an object of type T into it?
...get __alig
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-18 18:57 ---
Giovanni, this is applicable to TR1 via
4.5.5 Other transformations [tr.meta.trans.other] template struct aligned_storage { typedef unspecified type ; }; 1
type: an implementation defined POD type with size L
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-18 16:38
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I guess I don't see why/how alignof should be different than sizeof
> here (which works):
> template
> struct A
> {
>char foo[sizeof(T)];
> };
Yes, but how do you force
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at redhat dot com 2004-10-18 05:23 ---
Subject: Re: dependent expressions in attributes
>Is this a showstopper for tr1 work?
Not that I can see. From what I can tell, tr1::array is going to require
default-constructable types.
I think the library h
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-18 03:51
---
Subject: Re: dependent expressions in attributes
>> template
>> struct A {
>> char foo __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__(T;
>> };
>
> I do care.
Is this a showstopper for tr1 work?
Giovanni Baj
--- Additional Comments From gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2004-10-17 07:50 ---
Subject: Re: dependent expressions in attributes
On Sat, 17 Oct 2004, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
| OK, I fixed part of this for 4.0. The missing part is when the expression in
| attributes is depende
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-17 04:47
---
OK, I fixed part of this for 4.0. The missing part is when the expression in
attributes is dependent, like:
template
struct A {
char foo __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__(T;
};
This is non-trivia
16 matches
Mail list logo
