--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 11:35 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby, maybe adjacent_difference should also be in the DR?
yes, you&#x
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 17:18 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"squell at alumina dot nl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-24 16:42
---
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 18:21 ---
Subject: Re: function overload resolution fails when any template is declared
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Both ICC and Comeau accept this.
just a
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-25 09:51 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"chris at bubblescope dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'm not personally 100% sure that this should be "fixed", I&#
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-25 15:28 ---
Subject: Re: overload resolution does not find templated function
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This basically boils down
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-31 08:52 ---
Subject: Re: New: Fails valid? (valid according to Comeau anyway)
"igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| typedef int A;
| struct foo{
| A A;
| };
|
| compiles
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-02 18:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Using frexp with fabs produces negative
result
"reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Here's a snippet from the
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 10:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: Error in Koenig Lookup causes overload resolution failure
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.la
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 10:13 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 1) This bug is not in libstdc++, but in t
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 12:20 ---
Subject: Re: New: Silly "unused variable" warning after redeclaration of a
local variable
"steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Maybe there are sim
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-04 13:26 ---
Subject: Re: SFINAE bug
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| IIRC SFINAE does not mean not instantiating the template class.
That is true. However, th
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-06 11:57 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #44)
| > | Howeve
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-08 04:56 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| template<>
| struct
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-08 04:59 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This said, I still cannot think this b
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-08 10:25 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Subject: Re: can't compile s
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-08 10:29 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #53)
| > I know
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-08 18:08 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Does a compiler serve its users or t
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-09 08:35 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From adah at
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-09 11:07 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Do *you* like it?
It is immaterial as fa
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-09 17:28 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #63)
| > | Do
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-09 17:36 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #58)
| > It serve
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-10 11:35 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Now to your point. Please notice that
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-11 06:31 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Furthermore, and more importantly,
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-11 06:46 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi Gaby,
|
| I have read Sutter's
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 03:39 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| What I have not is that a PRoblem resulti
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 03:41 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From adah at
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 03:45 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So I am not to argue with you. :-)
You
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 04:05 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > Because what I wrote was
|
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 06:19 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Herb Sutter's opinion (N1792)
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 09:04 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Herb Sutter's opinion (N179
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 09:44 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > you still fail to provide such a d
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-12 11:45 ---
Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector,
std::vector)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | For a class X, all functions,
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-22 19:49 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' warning about
std::complex
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This is a bug in
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-30 00:09 ---
Subject: Re: -Wsign-compare and const propagation
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| As annoying as this is, I don't consider this a bug. It may b
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-08-30 13:41 ---
Subject: Re: Typeinfo comparison code easily breaks shared libs
"ghost at cs dot msu dot su" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| And if I forget just a single header (which was probably a
--- Comment #15 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-06 22:21
---
Subject: Re: valarray uses __cos which may conflict with
libm functions
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 00:35
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| AFAICS, the standard is silent about this issue. I think the
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 01:05
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-3
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 01:07
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi again. On second tought, I don't think we have a
--- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 07:54
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"Woebbeking at web dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Monday 30 January 2006 02:09, pcarlini
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 12:50
---
Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floating point numbers
"Woebbeking at web dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: std::advance() isn't stable for floa
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-01-30 18:14
---
Subject: Re: no match for 'operator<<'
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I should note this is called argument dependent lookup (or ADL, there
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-02 15:12
---
Subject: Re: error and warning count
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > IMO this is a useful feature because the number of lines of error output
that
| &
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 03:56
---
Subject: Re: support for type traits is not available
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The interest should really go to the committe than one
| implementation.
--- Comment #24 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 03:58
---
Subject: Re: gcc lays down two copies of constructors
"ian at airs dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I don't feel that this PR should be suspended, at least not until we
| have
--- Comment #25 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 04:00
---
Subject: Re: gcc lays down two copies of constructors
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But that does not work for some assemblers/file formats (like Darwi
--- Comment #3 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-08 15:32
---
Subject: Re: -Wconversion fails to detect signedness conversion from int to
unsigned int in fuction call
"mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| ugh, that warni
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-08 22:30
---
Subject: Re: g++ bug, possibly introduced around gcc 3.4.0
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| try comp.lang.c++ first and then go from there.
comp.std.c++ is t
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 18:15
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Yes you forgot to remove the library and tools directory for Ada.
So w
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 19:14
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #4)
| > Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c+
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 20:37
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #6)
| > But the point is that the build m
--- Comment #11 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-14 21:11
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 01:59
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTE
--- Comment #19 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 02:00
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The wiki mentions what needs to be removed also:
| http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #20 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 02:01
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran needs ada
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I guess I'm left unimpressed at the current --enable-languages=c,
--- Comment #21 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 02:05
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I think there is a misunderstanding on how our build
--- Comment #26 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 14:52
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| GDR you commented on this before:
| http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #25 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 14:49
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| How would you guys design this?
That was explaine
--- Comment #31 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-16 15:53
---
Subject: Re: --enable-languages=c,c++ not working as expected, documented when
removing gcc/ada and libada but not gnattools
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-21 17:19
---
Subject: Re: Wrong attempts to create a copy of an anonymous object
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-28 09:02
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 only] Use of 'mov' may violate WAW dependency 'GR%, % in 1 -
127' (impliedf), specific resource number is 14
"wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL P
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-28 10:13
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] Missed inline opportunity
"yuri at tsoft dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So there should be no performance-related bugs reported any more
| since you
--- Comment #19 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-03-17 23:37
---
Subject: Re: g++ miscompiles gcjx
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| is this still an active issue, or was it indicative of some temporary or
| transient thing in
--- Comment #1 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-06 12:03
---
Subject: Re: New: Structures are copied byte by byte into function arguments
"guillaume dot melquiond at ens-lyon dot fr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| With 3.4.6, the copy is d
--- Comment #5 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-06 12:23
---
Subject: Re: When using excessive -ftemplate-depth g++ overflows the stack
"gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
| The standard says the limit have
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-06 13:09
---
Subject: Re: When using excessive -ftemplate-depth g++ overflows the stack
"gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
| ( As an aside that suggests that
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-04-27 13:37 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] ICE in in gen_split_1204 on i686-pc-linux-gnu
target
"rgrosseboerger at dspace dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The proposed patch fixes the redu
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-04-30 21:50 ---
Subject: Re: Configuring g++ library for various locales ?
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| For that kind of GNU x86-linux platform we have, literal
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-04-30 22:16 ---
Subject: Re: Configuring g++ library for various locales ?
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I understand that bugzilla is not a hotline, but we would
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-01 05:21 ---
Subject: Re: __attribute__((deprecated)) not useful on classes, and ugly
function name listed for deperecation warnings on constructor
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTE
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-02 13:27 ---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Two quick comments: 1- I'd like to keep open
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-02 14:09 ---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse do
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-02 16:40 ---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
"rittle at latour dot waar dot labs dot mot dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: New: Lack of
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-02 17:17 ---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse do
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-02 18:45 ---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse do
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-02 19:09 ---
Subject: Re: Empty declaration with typeof accepted
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Confirmed. Funny enough, icc accepts the code as well...
would th
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-03 15:24 ---
Subject: Re: configure reports only a warning when bison is not installed
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Are you building from the source tarball o
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-03 15:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] build now requires bision
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-04 12:12 ---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
"jkanze at cheuvreux dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| This bug report came about because of a
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-15 16:47 ---
Subject: Re: cp_binding_level::names not returning all decls
"sstrasser at systemhaus-gruppe dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #9)
| > only if it may be
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-16 00:14 ---
Subject: Re: static_cast falsely allows const to be cast away
"schlie at comcast dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-16 02:54 ---
Subject: Re: static_cast falsely allows const to be cast away
"schlie at comcast dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-16 09:07 ---
Subject: Re: static_cast falsely allows const to be cast away
"schlie at comcast dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-16 17:00 ---
Subject: Re: static_cast falsely allows const to be cast away
"schlie at comcast dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #9)
| Subject: Re: static_cast falsely
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-16 19:19 ---
Subject: Re: Possible bug
"sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #7)
| > > Is there a way to distinguish between unions (w
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-18 14:04 ---
Subject: Re: templates and anonymous enum
"papadopo at shfj dot cea dot fr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Therefore:
|
| * Concerning 1.a) and 1.b) I'm not convinced th
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-18 15:07 ---
Subject: Re: [DR 278] templates and anonymous enum
"papadopo at shfj dot cea dot fr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I guess what I meant is: whatever the reason for this error messag
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-18 17:08 ---
Subject: Re: [DR 278] templates and anonymous enum
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > .. The error message shoudl really point at what's wron
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-19 19:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: array-of-empty-structure extension not properly defined
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| For
|
| struct {} a[4]; int main() { ret
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-19 23:27 ---
Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression
"igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Yes, the friend function is returning a reference to its own argumen
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-19 23:31 ---
Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-19 23:35 ---
Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Here is another example where we don't know for sure it shows h
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-20 00:12 ---
Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression
"igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| In particular, once you get all the template armwaving out of it:
|
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-20 00:15 ---
Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #9)
| > And we can construct more. But i
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-21 18:32 ---
Subject: Re: No flag to turn off warning: warning: template-argument
`' uses anonymous type
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-21 21:42 ---
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
"schlie at comcast dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #4)
| > Subject: Re: wrong-code wit
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-22 10:32 ---
Subject: Re: call of overloaded `llabs(int)' is ambiguous
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby, can you have a look?
Yup. Just woke up and many peopl
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-22 15:35 ---
Subject: Re: MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| What about using PATH_MAX which is part of the POSIX standard?
I
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-31 11:16 ---
Subject: Re: New: C++/C99 standard violation in for loop
"ahelm at gmx dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| C++ standard quote:
|
| 3.3.2, paragraph 4:
| Names declared in the fo
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-06-06 14:50 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1 regression] pretty printer confusion
"reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The error message reads:
|
| bug.cc: In function &
201 - 300 of 390 matches
Mail list logo
