--- Additional Comments From matthew dot whitney at gmail dot com
2005-03-10 02:25 ---
Could someone take another look at this? I don't mean to waste your time, but I
don't understand the explanation given. I know of another compiler that handles
the example code without any problems.
I
--- Additional Comments From sailors3 at comcast dot net 2005-03-10 02:42
---
Subject: RE: internal compiler error with bogus asm output constraint
Thanks, I'll give that a try.
Regards,
Dave
-Original Message-
From: falk at debian dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: W
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
02:48 ---
The linux kernel requires optimization to be correctly compiled. This is a
deliberate design decision by the linux kernel developers.
Part of the reason is the kernel's use of extern inline as already menti
In the old gcc-2.95.2 days we could create a solaris cross compiler which
worked well with our use of STL's "class queue" defined as . In the much
newer gcc-3.4.2, release our solaris cross compiler has a problem
differentiating between the system header's definition of "struct queue", and
our
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
03:29 ---
And this is a gcc bug, why?
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression
--- Additional Comments From dkavedku at yahoo dot com 2005-03-10 03:31
---
I forgot to include the configure command used for creating the compilers:
../src/configure --host=sparc-sun-solaris2.7 --target=sparc-sun-solaris2.8 --
prefix=/usr/tools/upgrade/gnu/gcc/3.4.2 --with-local-
pref
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
03:33 ---
Huh? unused paramaters are still need to be able to compile and be accessible.
If that compiler handles this code, well that compiler has a bug in it.
ICC gives the following warning though (but note it s
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
03:36 ---
Again why don't you report this to Sun who has control over this header.
This is not a gcc bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From dkavedku at yahoo dot com 2005-03-10 03:43
---
If you would like to know read source distribution file:
gcc/fixinc/README
Its pretty clear that while we might be able to create a compiler that works
OK, it doesn't allow Solaris C++ developers to compile
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-03-10 03:45 ---
Subject: Re: g++ rejects valid code with 'is inaccessible' error
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:25:03AM -, matthew dot whitney at gmail dot com
wrote:
> Now it compiles fine. Before this is closed again I'd like to
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
04:24 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm taking a look at the uses of MEM_READONLY_P, though I'm not
> sure which one has the similar issue. It looks that modified_in_p
> has the same problem with modified_between_p.
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
04:47 ---
The segfault is the same problem as PR 20364, which I fixed on the gcc-3.4
branch two days ago. The error message problem is now PR 20285. So closing as
a duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a dupli
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
04:47 ---
*** Bug 20281 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
The following lines of code used to compile well using gcc-2.95.x:
#include
#include
using namespace std;
int main()
{
queue q;
q.push(0);
}
When this is compiled using gcc-3.4.2 the following error is reported:
*machine_202>g++ test.cpp -v
Reading specs from /usr/tools/upgrade/gnu/gcc/3
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-10
06:56 ---
Just ask on comp.lang.c++.moderated for more information. We help with C++
issues a little, but we cannot explaint things in detail to every C++
developer in the world.
Ah, and when Andrew said "interjecte
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Component|c++
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
