--- Comment #23 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 01:48 ---
When doing the last bit, I ran into some other issues, where some of the
libsupc++ bits (typeinfo, unexpected_handler, uncaught_exception, nothrow etc)
are internally defined within std.
(? Or seem to be.)
This
--- Comment #24 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 01:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=10524)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10524&action=view)
libsupc++ issue 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #25 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 01:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=10525)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10525&action=view)
libsupc++ issue 2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #26 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 01:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=10526)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10526&action=view)
libsupc++ issue 3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 08:08 ---
Subject: Bug 25472
Author: bkoz
Date: Sun Dec 18 08:08:07 2005
New Revision: 108743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108743
Log:
2005-12-17 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #27 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 03:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=10567)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10567&action=view)
files from kona meeting
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #28 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 03:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=10568)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10568&action=view)
mail surrounding namespace association development
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 04:01 ---
Subject: Bug 25472
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Jan 10 04:01:00 2006
New Revision: 109531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109531
Log:
2006-01-09 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 04:01 ---
fixed in mainline and 4.1.x
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 17:14 ---
Subject: Bug 23591
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Jan 10 17:14:00 2006
New Revision: 109545
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109545
Log:
2006-01-10 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAI
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 17:22 ---
I'd like to either close this or change it to bootstrap, in the attempt to flag
the attention of the top-level build people for this bug.
I don't consider this a libstdc++ problem.
--
http://g
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 17:25 ---
Fixed in 4.1.x and mainline.
There is another found while looking at this bug, in that multi-threaded apps
with multiple, pending exceptions will leak active and in-flight exceptions at
termination.
I'll o
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 17:26 ---
Fixed.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #30 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 20:09 ---
Confirmed. Excellent, thanks. This is great, no regressions known with this on.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24660
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 22:11 ---
I'm on it. This patch should be a step to fixing this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25797
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 22:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=10655)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10655&action=view)
correct configure test
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25797
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 19:21 ---
Ack! Some of this stuff was fixed on mainline and 4.1 recently. I thought I'd
gotten everything, but I guess not.
Please put this type of fix in 4.1 as well...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 22:32 ---
paolo I can reproduce this on x86/linux with binutils 2.16.1
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes3837
# of unexpected failures134
# of unexpected successes 1
# of
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-20 00:23 ---
H.J, are you seeing this kind of additional symptom with binutils-2.16.1:
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/cons/char/6.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/mnt/hd/bld/H-x86-binutils-2.16.1/bin/ld:
testsuite_abi.o
--- Comment #96 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 02:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=11912)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11912&action=view)
viz patch part one
Hey Jakub.
Here's a way to start in on this.
This does two things:
1)
--- Comment #97 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 02:56 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #99 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-20 23:37 ---
Subject: Bug 19664
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Jul 20 23:37:27 2006
New Revision: 115632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115632
Log:
2006-07-20 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAI
namespaces
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28514
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-27 17:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=11957)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11957&action=view)
reproducer with today's gcc
To reproduce, do:
/mnt/share/bld/gcc/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/mnt/s
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-27 17:05 ---
Jason can you look at this plz?
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-27 22:21 ---
I definitely remember Gaby talking about this at the standards meetings.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28407
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-27 22:32 ---
Changing just the first
case _S_concat:
to
case ::_S_concat:
Fixes this. Wierd.
I noticed a couple of other random lookup issues, or non-issues that surprised
me. One was with static
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-27 22:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=11961)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11961&action=view)
work-in-progress patch to convert libstdc++ to anonymous namespaces
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-27 22:33 ---
change title
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|pch vs
--- Comment #100 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 04:57 ---
Subject: Bug 19664
Author: bkoz
Date: Fri Jul 28 04:57:34 2006
New Revision: 115790
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115790
Log:
2006-07-27 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-29 15:41 ---
Is there a way to map ecj's warnings options onto gcc's existing warning flags?
-w
-W
-Wextra
?
deprecation == -Wno-deprecated-declarations
serial == ??
typeHiding == -Wshadow
unchecked == ?
unused == -Wu
--- Comment #101 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-22 12:44 ---
Fixed.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #31 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-22 14:05 ---
This experiment is deemed sucessful.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-28 09:49 ---
Just a note.
The current behavior is as intended, although perhaps not documented. I'll be
fixing that later today.
Here's a message from last month detailing in advance this exact bug report:
http://g
igned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28870
tatus: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-28 20:18 ---
Subject: Bug 23773
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Aug 28 20:18:22 2006
New Revision: 116527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116527
Log:
2006-08-28 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-29 10:36 ---
More info.
I was able to take mainline libstdc++ sources, modify limits,
--disable-visibility and then run check-compile on the same machine/os/sources
with both 4_1-branch and mainline (20060827).
The time just to
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-29 10:44 ---
Actually, this is -S, so not just compile only. Hmm.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28871
--- Comment #16 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-31 09:08 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #17 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-31 10:46 ---
Subject: Bug 28671
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Aug 31 10:45:59 2006
New Revision: 116601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116601
Log:
2006-08-31 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #19 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-31 22:20 ---
Subject: Bug 28671
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Aug 31 22:20:09 2006
New Revision: 116608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116608
Log:
2006-08-31 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-04 15:22 ---
> Furthermore, defining _Tag in an anonymous namespace will cause the compiler
> to
> give all functions with _Tag in their signature internal linkage. I don't
> understand why you would wa
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-04 15:25 ---
...this is a PCH vs. anonymous namespace issue. Crack smoking! If PCH is
incommpatible with anonymous namespaces, then -Winvalid-pch needs to warn about
it at the time of pch creation.
I'm going to check in a f
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-04 15:26 ---
Fixed.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-04 15:41 ---
Subject: Bug 28871
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Sep 4 15:41:18 2006
New Revision: 116680
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116680
Log:
2006-09-04 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 15:36 ---
See:
http://www.osl.iu.edu/~dgregor/cpp/variadic-templates.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20599
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 06:19 ---
For the record, I'm strongly in favor of variadic templates. Key parts of TR1
(tuple, functional) necessitate some kind of compiler support in order to have
full implementations: the current limits on tuple siz
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 06:26 ---
Janis, this is how to set timeout on the "make check" command line:
time make check RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v -v -v --tool_opts timeout=300"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28870
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 15:18 ---
Huh. Dave, is revision 116942M the same as revision 116942?
Of these, 19_diagnostics/23591_thread-1.c is probably the easiest to debug.
Since this is the linux target, and not the hpux target, the code paths for the
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 09:00 ---
I like this solution a lot. NICE!
It seems as if everything is now consistent except for std::string. Any
thoughts on that one?
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29134
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 10:21 ---
Ok, seems sane enough. Just curious about the omission.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29134
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 20:24 ---
> I applied r116954 to 116942.
Well, then it's still my patch or patches then. Sorry.
> It's still using linuxthreads. Also because of the limitations
> of the ldcw semaphore instruction in PA 1
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 20:26 ---
Also:
Does hpux use the hppa atomics config, or the generic layer? If it uses the
hppa atomics config, why isn't this a problem on hpux?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29118
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 21:10 ---
Whoops, Janis, you are right. Sorry for the false alarm. The fancy dejagnu line
I spit out at you does nothing.
I also tried to hack up this as you suggested:
Index: testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: all
GCC host triplet: all
GCC target triplet: all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29298
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 10:05 ---
Thanks Andrew. I agree, this is not permitted by the standard as the enclosing
class is not specialized.
What a bummer. I suppose I can work around this by making a more convoluted
inheritance chain.
This would have
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 10:06 ---
s/to/two
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29298
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 09:48 ---
// try this simpler code.
#include
#include
namespace
{
__gnu_cxx::__mutex test_mutex;
unsigned int i;
} // anonymous namespace
void* add(void*)
{
__gnu_cxx::__scoped_lock sentry(test_mutex);
{
++i
--- Comment #16 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 09:52 ---
When you get to "break here" this is what your mutex should look like in gdb:
Breakpoint 2, add () at lock_test.cc:14
(gdb) p test_mutex
$4 = {_M_mutex = {__data = {__lock = 1, __count = 0, __own
--- Comment #17 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 09:55 ---
I don't think this is an ordering problem... there are no complicated ordering
issues in this code. Something to try might be making test_mutex static, and
not in an anonymous namespace.
I'm not quite sur
gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: sh*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: all
GCC host triplet: all
GCC target triplet: all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29367
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 10:41 ---
try again.
the thing about (now) throw_allocator is that if some of the testcases have
allocated memory and then an exception is thrown, the "leaked" memory is
actually testsuite-type temporaries that should
--- Comment #23 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12399)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12399&action=view)
patch for mutex init
Can you try this? thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29118
--- Comment #24 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:32 ---
Hey Dave. Thanks for your persistence on this one: I think it's paid off. I can
see what you are talking about WRT mutex initialization, and have high hopes
for the attached patch. If you can try it, and let me
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 21:45 ---
Note this issue is not c++ or libstdc++ specific. I see timeouts on old
hardware all over the testsuite on gcc-testresults.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28870
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 23:53 ---
Subject: Bug 29095
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Oct 9 23:53:35 2006
New Revision: 117589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117589
Log:
2006-10-09 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #26 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 09:54 ---
Ok. I think I'll put this in.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29118
r extern "C" vs. C++ function
pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 10:09 ---
This would be an enhancement to both g++ and the IA64 C++ ABI.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 10:14 ---
Subject: Bug 29118
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Oct 10 10:14:13 2006
New Revision: 117600
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117600
Log:
2006-10-09 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #12 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 20:07 ---
adding ABI keyword as implementing this may change mangling for "C" functions.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:55 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:56 ---
Note we don't actually know if this is a regression, as without the stricter
error checking that is now present this may not be failing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:58 ---
This is probably just another ordering issue. I'm on it.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 08:30 ---
Subject: Bug 29095
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Oct 11 08:30:42 2006
New Revision: 117629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117629
Log:
2006-10-09 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 08:33 ---
Fixed in mainline and gcc-4.1.2.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 09:48 ---
This is a regression, oh well.
Can you confirm for me that mingw32 is a target w/o __cxa_atexit?
I don't suppose it will make any difference, but can you please try:
- __gnu_cxx::__recursive_mutex static_
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 09:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=12407)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12407&action=view)
simple failure testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 14:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=12408)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12408&action=view)
patch
Please try this and see if it works. If so, let me know.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 19:11 ---
Hmm. Eric, are you testing this on mingw32, or on darwin? If darwin, is this
the cause of the recent massive failures?
If so, I'll put this in immediately. If you can let me know in the next 2-3
hours I can get
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 20:18 ---
Subject: Bug 29426
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Oct 11 20:18:36 2006
New Revision: 117643
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117643
Log:
2006-10-11 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #12 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-16 14:06 ---
Paolo you are correct, non-build testing is at issue. I'm trying to fix...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29095
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-16 17:22 ---
Subject: Bug 29095
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Oct 16 17:22:38 2006
New Revision: 117788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117788
Log:
2006-10-16 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-17 11:48 ---
OK. I've reverted these anonymous namespace conversions.
Namespace that are just trying to squester name lookup should be spelled as
nested "detail" namespaces. Namespaces that are trying to prohi
--- Comment #12 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-17 11:52 ---
Should be libstdc++ bug.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-17 11:56 ---
Subject: Bug 28514
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Oct 17 11:56:21 2006
New Revision: 117824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117824
Log:
2006-10-17 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-18 09:43 ---
Please attach a complete test case, not a sketch.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29496
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-18 15:56 ---
Paolo: Seems like an interesting idea.
Grzegorz: interesting that others have run into this. Without a testcase, it's
hard to say with certainty what is valid and what is invalid. Also, without a
testcase ther
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 09:28 ---
Ie:
#include
int
main()
{
using namespace std;
const wchar_t w1 = { 0x4e2d };// U+20013 == 0x4E2D
const wchar_t w2 = { 0x56fd };// U+22269 == 0x56FD
const wchar_t w3(20013);
const wchar_t w4(22269
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-25 15:30 ---
Subject: Bug 29722
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Jan 25 15:30:32 2007
New Revision: 121175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121175
Log:
2007-01-24 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #12 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-26 12:44 ---
Reopen..
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-26 13:23 ---
Revert.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28125
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-26 13:49 ---
Subject: Bug 28125
Author: bkoz
Date: Fri Jan 26 13:49:42 2007
New Revision: 121203
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121203
Log:
2007-01-26 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-29 10:51 ---
Subject: Bug 28125
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Jan 29 10:51:01 2007
New Revision: 121282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121282
Log:
2007-01-28 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-30 18:05 ---
Subject: Bug 30571
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Jan 30 18:04:59 2007
New Revision: 121349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121349
Log:
2007-01-30 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-01 12:20 ---
Should array_allocator be copy-constructable? I am not sure that the extra
effort to make _M_used shared in a mt-safe manner is worth it, for something
that is supposed to be write-once memory.
This is a deviation
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
401 - 500 of 1176 matches
Mail list logo
