--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20359
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20383
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20427
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20552
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20639
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20731
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20774
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20905
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21141
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21536
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21589
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21616
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21642
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21768
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21784
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21792
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22078
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22129
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22213
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22215
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22292
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22362
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22409
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23139
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23253
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23460
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23573
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23665
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23870
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23950
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24040
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24050
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24063
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24097
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24103
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-27 16:21
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> INT_MAX/-1 is undefined.
> and signed overflow is undefined.
>
> Why file this bug when the comments on the list say this is not a bug?
(In reply to comment #5)
>
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-27 18:25
---
Andrew is being silly.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-29 14:41
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: g++ 4.0.0 has issues
> with the typedef of reference
>
> Well it compiles perfectly fine on a Sun Solaris Machine with
> Sun Studio 9 installed that
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-03 14:10
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] '#'obj_type_ref' not supported by dump_expr
>
> "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-03 15:37
---
fixed for 4.1.0
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu
dot org
GCC build triplet: native
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-07-
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21 06:55
---
For some reasons Bugzilla did not want to understand that I'm reporting the
bug agains 4.1.0.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23 19:50
---
Bug 22633 has been marked duplicate of this, but that is a bit of strech.
However, the stituation has elvolved since 2.95.2 and GCC is now able to
detected some forms ofrecursion as real loops. What this bug
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-24 03:01
---
.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |minor
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-09 09:41
---
local classes are pervasive in C++.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Comment #11 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-06 19:17 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I'll re-open this only if Gaby, maintainer of valarray, thinks it's the right
> thing to do.
>
If someone wants to rename __cos to _Cos, that is fine by me.
But, it s
--- Comment #3 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2010-05-22 15:32 ---
Subject: Re: [C++0x] std::complex vs. initialization lists
"paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" writes:
| Jason, can you have a look to the errors due to the ambiguous overloading
| pointed out by Benjam
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 02:16 ---
I concur with Lawrence' analysis.
I was bitten by this bug myself in my own code.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #3 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-11-08 11:23 ---
Subject: Re: warning in backward_warning.h is illegible
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| We cannot assume that people encountering the warning will have web access.
That is
--- Comment #18 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-30 21:10 ---
The program is invalid, there is no point in getting into special
cased corner cases. If you happen to have those macros in the same program
from real world applications, you probably should be watching for
bigger
--- Comment #17 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-23 21:22 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Gaby --
>
> Paolo and I would like your input on this issue, please.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Mark
>
Sorry for replying late -- this issue escaped by attention; Paolo
--- Comment #20 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-05 07:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #18 from ma
--- Comment #21 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-05 07:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Also, I'm afraid the i
--- Comment #23 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-06 15:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: [4.
--- Comment #25 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-07 00:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: [4.
--- Comment #27 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-07 06:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #26 from ma
--- Comment #28 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-07 06:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Imagine that you'
--- Comment #29 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-07 07:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > We have no plan of ho
--- Comment #32 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-07 08:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #31 from ma
--- Comment #33 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-07 08:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: [4.
--- Comment #35 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-08 02:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #34 from ma
--- Comment #13 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-06-09 14:06 ---
Subject: Re: A warning for "unused" typedefs?
"paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi Gaby, just a pointer, this is the enhancement PR I was talking ab
--- Comment #27 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-21 21:45 ---
Subject: Re: Typeinfo comparison code easily breaks shared libs
"rjohnson at dogstar-interactive dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I just got bit by this using
|gcc version 4.0.3 2005
--- Comment #16 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-21 22:44 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0. and higher. Fill no fix in 3.4.x
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-21 22:46 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 and higher, won't fix in 3.4.6.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #22 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-21 23:28 ---
Working on a patch.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #23 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 02:56 ---
Fixed in 4.2.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #19 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 03:00 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 and higher. Won't fix for 3.4.6
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 03:08 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 and higher. Won't fix for 3.4.6
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #20 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 03:13 ---
fixed. Not suspended. Silly bugzilla.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 03:43 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Also, it should detect any scalar member variables that are not assigned to in
> any way in the constructor.
Agreed.
However -Wunitialized is taken over by the middle-end. This is
on
--- Comment #7 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 10:32 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think this is related to PR 13095 or least the definition of what is a base
> class is.
That PR is different. A using declaration must nominate a base class.
This PR is not about a
--- Comment #9 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 10:44 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Sometimes a variable is created only for the side-effects of its
> constructor/destructor. For example, in the following code:
>
> struct Closer { ~Closer() { CloseClipboard()
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 10:52 ---
Definitely. Use of dynamic_cast should be rejected if -fno-rtti.
Working on a patch.
-- Gaby
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 17:32 ---
Subject: Bug 10891
Author: gdr
Date: Sun Jan 22 17:32:30 2006
New Revision: 110092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110092
Log:
2006-01-22 Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 17:39 ---
Fixed in 4.2.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #14 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-22 17:44 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 and higher. Won't fix in 3.4.x
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #1 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-22 20:10 ---
Subject: Re: New: Client's isnormal function is broken by cmath
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I believe the program below should compile:
Does the problem exist
--- Comment #3 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-22 20:42 ---
Subject: Re: Client's isnormal function is broken by cmath
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #1)
| >
| > Does the problem exist if you c
--- Comment #5 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-22 21:17 ---
Subject: Re: Client's isnormal function is broken by cmath
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #3)
|
| > (3) even when isnormal is enable-if hacke
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-23 01:17 ---
> > With this code:
> > template
> > void f(t c) {
> > assert(0 <= c and c <= 2);
> > }
> > int main() {
> > f(5);
> > }
> > I only get a warning
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-23 01:20 ---
Working on a patch.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #11 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-23 01:23 ---
Subject: Re: unsigned warning in template
"gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I see, I oversimplified the problem a bit. Here
--- Comment #3 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-23 20:57 ---
Subject: Re: New: Spurious offsetof warnings with private members
"rcbilson at plg dot uwaterloo dot ca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Consider:
|
| #include
| #include
|
| class xxx {
|
--- Comment #5 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-23 20:58 ---
Subject: Re: Spurious offsetof warnings with private members
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hmm, is this a non POD?
Yes, it is a non-POD.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #4 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-23 21:58 ---
Subject: Re: instantiated templates with anonymous namespace class as
arguments should be static
"geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Let's make this more general.
Geoff
--- Comment #6 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-23 22:36 ---
Subject: Re: Spurious offsetof warnings with private members
"rcbilson at plg dot uwaterloo dot ca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #2 from rcbilson at plg dot uwaterloo dot ca
--- Comment #4 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 01:32 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] [DR 391] Reference binding and explicit
copy constructors
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I am going to mark this a regression bu
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 02:38 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] [DR 391] Reference binding and explicit
copy constructors
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #4)
| > before yo
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-25 02:41 ---
Changing to request for enhancement. The requested behaviour is a change
in th working paper. Existing behaviour is what is required by the standard
(even when it can be argued that checking for something that is
--- Comment #11 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 03:09 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1] [DR 391] Reference binding and explicit copy
constructors
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #9 from hhinnant at apple dot com
--- Comment #12 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 03:20 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] [DR 152] Reference binding and explicit
copy constructors
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So this really just DR 152
No!
DR 1
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2006-01-25 02:41:25 |2006-01-25
--- Comment #14 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-25 03:28 ---
DR 391, not 392. My typo.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 03:40 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1] [DR 392] Reference binding and explicit copy
constructors
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #11)
| > | Did you read comme
--- Comment #18 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 15:51 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1] [DR 391] Reference binding and explicit copy
constructors
"mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This is certainly not a P1 for 4.1. If it's
--- Comment #16 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-26 16:44 ---
Subject: Re: g++ miscompiles gcjx
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby, here's the one thing that I can think of that changed between 3.4.x and
| mainline/4.1 in t
901 - 1000 of 1275 matches
Mail list logo
