On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
<g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> I assume this is a size_t vs int type problem, but the diagnostic
>> points to the function declaration, not to an actual binary
>> expression, and I can't figure out what it's complaining about:
>
> My mailer uses proportional fonts so I can't make sense of the
> diagnostics with the carets :-/
>
>>
>> Note: my current patchset is:
>>
>> Index: libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset
>> ===================================================================
>> --- libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset (revision 186562)
>> +++ libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset (working copy)
>> @@ -1374,13 +1374,13 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
>> void
>> bitset<_Nb>::
>> _M_copy_from_ptr(const _CharT* __s, size_t __len,
>> size_t __pos, size_t __n, _CharT __zero, _CharT __one)
>> {
>> reset();
>> - const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, __len - __pos));
>> + const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, (size_t)(__len -
>> __pos)));
>
> style nits: It should be size_t(__len - __pos), and not (size_t)(__len -
> __pos).
> Same for the other hunk. Patch OK with those changes.
This looks like a middle-end ICE that is at most worked around by the above
change. So I don't believe we should paper over it like this during stage1.
Richard.
> -- Gaby
