--- Comment #21 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 04:50 ---
Subject: Bug 42460
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Feb 9 04:49:49 2010
New Revision: 156617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156617
Log:
2010-02-08 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc
--- Comment #17 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 18:27 ---
Hey. Can you re-check trunk now? I should have most of the quoting issues
fixed.
I've uploaded man pages with the new markup here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/libstdc++/doxygen/libstdc++-man.20100204.tar.bz2
Ca
--
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 #16 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 18:20 ---
Subject: Bug 42460
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Feb 4 18:20:34 2010
New Revision: 156502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156502
Log:
2010-02-04 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 00:16 ---
markup options
/**
* @brief Flags access.
* @return The minimum field width to generate on output operations.
*
* "Minimum field width" refers to the number of
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 23:07 ---
Got it Matthias, fixing, thanks for explaining what's up.
How do you get these errors and validate the generated man pages? If it's a
script can you attach it? Are you re-configuring doxygen? Or is
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-07 18:40 ---
The rest of these look bogus to me.
__gnu_cxx::enc_filebuf.3cxx 805: warning: macro `If' not defined
__gnu_cxx::stdio_sync_filebuf.3cxx 699: warning: macro `If' not defined
std::basic_filebuf.3cxx 90
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-07 18:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=19502)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19502&action=view)
log of man page creation
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42460
--- You are receivi
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-12 23:01 ---
Sorry for the delay Paolo, this fix looks fine.
I see tanhl missing too in that log, yet the gnu.ver exports have it and so
does src/math_compatibility_long_double.cc, although depending on
_GLIBCXX_HAVE_TANHL. What
--- Comment #35 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-12 22:43 ---
Closing.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #33 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 19:41 ---
Agree with 30, 31, 32 looks like we have consensus.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39491
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 19:38 ---
Fixed.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 19:38 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 19:37 ---
Subject: Bug 39868
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Apr 29 19:37:30 2009
New Revision: 146985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146985
Log:
2009-04-29 Benjamin Kosnik
* xml/authors.
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 05:12 ---
Subject: Bug 39868
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Apr 29 05:12:00 2009
New Revision: 146923
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146923
Log:
2009-04-28 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc
--- Comment #27 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-27 22:46 ---
> 2) Someone please add a stub to libstdc++ for __signb...@glibcxx_3.4 that
> calls
> __signbitl in glibc.
Hmm. Well, you cannot actually add a new symbol versioned for the first release
in the ninth relea
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-27 22:35 ---
Is this any better in man4?
Todo should be killed.
Should all man pages based on libstdc++ include files and not class objects get
the axe?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39868
--- You are
--- Comment #23 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-23 17:16 ---
So:
* Original submitter is incorrect, there has never been a
__signb...@glibcxx_3.4 symbol, and there should not be one now?
Right. This should have manifested as an abi-check FAIL starting in gcc-4.2, as
a new
--- Comment #22 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-23 16:55 ---
>The hppa port sets long-double-fcts = no in glibc
> and this causes all the aliases to be created, otherwise you'd never
> be able to link anything that used `l' ending math
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-21 03:04 ---
> I believe the problem is the symbol was exported when it shouldn't have been.
How?
> The signbit macro is provided by math.h.
But it's not in the baseline files showing that it is exported. T
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 23:09 ---
There is no __signbitl export expected, from
config/abi/post/hppa-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt. Where is this from?
Assume this would result in an abi_check FAIL?
FYI
gcc-4.4 hppa-linux results are fine:
http
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 22:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=17649)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17649&action=view)
adds __signbitl for hppa
Bloody hack but will probably work
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 22:12 ---
Mine
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #20 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 08:45 ---
This patch seems good to me. What's the delay here?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27880
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are wat
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 18:32 ---
Solving for C++0x.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--
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
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- 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 #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 #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
--- 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 #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)
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||visibility
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- Comment #83 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 03:59 ---
I agree Geoff, we should hold off on this for 4.1, and try to hit 4.2. If
things get solid sooner, maybe this can be reconsidered. Adding this patch to
4.0.x is out of the question, it has the potential to change too
--- Comment #76 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 16:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=10085)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10085&action=view)
hidden visibility for __gnu_internal
Without per-namespace visibility attributes, this is what we will
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12 20:51
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12 20:05
---
Yep. Sorry. I fixed that bit too.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23417
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12 19:20
---
Reproducer, compile with -Weffc++.
#include
std::list l;
...fixing
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|15123 |
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13928
---
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-20 18:43
---
This is unrelated to 13928. I'm testing patches now.
-benjamin
--
What|Removed |
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||15123
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13928
---
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-13 21:59
---
Seems to be the same as 13928
-benjamin
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-13 20:17
---
I cannot confirm this. I think it has something to do with doxygen versions.
Using
%doxygen --version
1.3.4
I can create the following:
http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/doxygen/
-benjamin
--
http
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12451
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
44 matches
Mail list logo
