--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-01-06 08:25
---
(In reply to comment #18)
There are still problems, testcase from comment #14 fails with:
gcc -O2 -msse pr12902-1.c
pr12902-1.c: In function 'swizzle':
pr12902-1.c:32: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 105 97 46
#include
using namespace std;
template class C1 {
public:
T V;
C1(T v) : V(v) {};
class nested {
public:
T W;
nested(T w) : W(w) {};
};
};
// This works well
template
T f1 ( C1& c) { return c.V; }
// the problem is HERE
template
T f2 ( typename C1::nested& c) { ret
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
08:48 ---
Patch here for the record:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg00948.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18792
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-06
10:13 ---
This is invalid. Within the expression "C1::nested", T cannot be deduced
because it is in an nondeduced context.
ISO/ANSI C++ standard reference: [temp.deduct.type]/4:
The nondeduced contexts are:
--
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pld-linux/3.4.4/specs
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit
--enable-languages=c,c++,f77,objc,ad
In gcc 3.4, option -M outputs different rules when used with -g:
$ cat foo.c
#include
$
$ touch foo.h
$
$ gcc -M -I. foo.c
foo.o: foo.c foo.h
$
$ gcc -g -M -I. foo.c
# 1 "/home/user//"
foo.o: foo.c ./foo.h
$
This was not the case with gcc 3.3. While the output is arguably correct since
'#' i
"Carl van_Schaik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this becomes a pain since gcc somtimes knows this and uses fp as a gpr,
> but I cannot clobber it.
Why do you want to?
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 13:35
---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-01/msg00043.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mike at tedder dot com 2005-01-06 13:37
---
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I've noticed that gcc-3.4.0 and 3.4.1 has been
successfully built for powerpc, which is why I figured I might have done
something wrong.
I upgraded to binutils-2.14 and glibc-2.3.3
--- Additional Comments From jean-pierre dot chevallet at imag dot fr
2005-01-06 13:44 ---
Subject: RE: No more possible to have a template function that uses a nested
class of a template class
Thank you very much for your answer, and I'm very impressed : you have
answer very quicky !
#include
#include
int main()
{
std::string s("Hello World");
printf("%s\n", s);
return 0;
}
$ /usr/local/gcc343/bin/g++ nonPODWarn.cc
nonPODWarn.cc: In function `int main()':
nonPODWarn.cc:6: warning: cannot pass objects of non-POD type `struct
std::string' through `...'; call will abor
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:04 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> #include
> #include
> int main()
> {
> std::string s("Hello World");
> printf("%s\n", s);
> return 0;
> }
>
It cannot be as it is only undefined behavior and the C++
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:08 ---
Did you build in a clean directory?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19289
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 14:12
---
There is no bug, the compiler has been configured incorrectly.
--libdir=/usr/lib64 should not be used for multilibbed gcc's, --libdir=/usr/lib
is what you want. The os multilib magic will DTRT.
Similarly, --
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:16 ---
So closing as invalid.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:18 ---
I knew I had saw this before. This is a dup of bug 17651 which is fixed 3.4.4.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17651 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:18 ---
*** Bug 19290 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:21 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pluto at pld-linux dot org 2005-01-06 14:23
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Did you build in a clean directory?
Here's my build script:
# rm -rf builddir && mkdir builddir && cd builddir
# ../configure \
#{options}
# cd ..
# make -C builddir \
#profi
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:25 ---
Well it is compiling with the installed gcc which is just wrong then.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19289
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 14:27
---
Looks like I didn't close this bug, when I said I would.
--
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 14:37
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15080 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 14:37
---
*** Bug 18915 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900
This is a metabug for all issues in gfortran that need to be resolved before
gfortran can be used as a complete replacement for g77.
I'm not sure about the following bugs:
- PR 15553 : does this also occur without explicit interfaces? IOW is it
possible to provoke this error in Fortran 77 code?
-
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13082
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12884
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13257
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14067
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13939
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14994
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15235
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15266
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15326
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15332
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15382
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15966
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15234
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16435
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16436
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16531
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16465
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16511
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16580
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17229
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16907
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17285
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-06 14:40
---
Some more discussion:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00176.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19252
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17472
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17675
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17871
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17423
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17737
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17992
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17941
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18398
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18026
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18210
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18576
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18540
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18481
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18518
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18714
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18600
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18737
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18781
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18827
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18794
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18879
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18870
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18982
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18977
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19021
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19280
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19216
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19292
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19052
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-06 14:46
---
Giving explicit template arguments for template operators works
the same way: write
x.operator<< (abc)
instead of
x << abc
As for the evolution of C++: it isn't C++ but rather gcc that is evolving.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|18576 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Keywords||meta-bug
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:50 ---
Subject: Bug 19267
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 14:49:36
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog dwarf2out.c gimple-low.c tr
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:51 ---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:50 ---
Subject: Bug 19286
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 14:49:36
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog dwarf2out.c gimple-low.c tr
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
14:52 ---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
15:22 ---
Subject: Bug 19270
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 15:22:11
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog pt.c
gcc/testsuite
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
15:24 ---
2005-01-06 Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/19270
* pt.c (tsubst_copy) : Handle separately.
(tsubst_copy_and_build) : Remove obsolete
array-new handling code. Use
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-06
15:31 ---
My passionate suggestion is to avoid nested classes, but you didn't hear this
from me ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19288
--- Additional Comments From jeff at connectrf dot com 2005-01-06 15:33
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is not a gcc bug, either this is your bug and the .o file is not an
object file or this is a binutils bug.
Andrew, then perhaps you can explain why the exact same code compiles, l
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
15:41 ---
Subject: Bug 19258
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 15:41:34
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog pt.c
gcc/testsuite
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
15:42 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This is not a gcc bug, either this is your bug and the .o file is not an
> object file or this is a binutils bug.
>
> Andrew, then perhaps you can exp
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-06
15:43 ---
I'm no Fortran guru, but could be this related to PR 17675?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18977
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
15:46 ---
Yes this is most likely PR 17675 which effects all targets where unaligned
loads cause an processor
exception (and the OS does not handle it) (ia64 is one of these targets).
--
What|Remove
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
15:46 ---
Fixed in the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 15:52
---
Yeah, this is fold_widened_comparison "optimizing":
(short intD.7) (short unsigned intD.8) (intD.0) (short unsigned intD.8) uD.1124
<
0
into 1 (for unsigned int uD.1124).
get_unwidened returns (unsigned short
--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-06
15:56 ---
The reduced case given in comment #9 fails to compile with Intel compiler ("This
entity cannot be in a specification expression"), Sun ("Local variable "M" must
be a dummy argument or in common to be used
avr-gcc crashes with an internal compiler error when shift operations with
negative shift count are used, e.g. a >> -13. Error message is "negative
instruction length", probably since the expression used for calculating the
instruction length (c-code) assumes the shift count to be a positive num
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
16:04 ---
Subject: Bug 17154
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 16:04:06
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog search.c
gcc/tests
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
16:06 ---
Fixed in the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
