https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, and it 1) refers to the key function and 2) is done by the linker not the
compiler.
Which is what I've been suggesting.
If binutils wants to do this and wants to provide a URL, we'll need a more
per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#vague-vtable
The ABI specifies it
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You reported the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> I'll open an LWG issue to get clarification.
LWG agrees that it's ill-formed (no diagnostic required) to include standard
headers inside a linkage-specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, but "the first non-pure, non-inline virtual function in the class" is easy
for the user to find.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You reported the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #16)
> The compiler could store information in the compiled object listing the
> virtual members for which no implementation was found, due to which reason
> the vt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #16)
> I'm not quite sure what a key function is,
Then read the link I gave you in PR 104918 comment 1.
> Not just learners. If you have a large class with many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 104918 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You reported the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The linker error alone doesn't make the root cause obvious, but it's a
> fairly well known and well documented problem:
> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #11)
> 1. Adjust the error message to say, "The first non-inline, non-pure function
> may not have a definition in ."
That error comes from the linker. The linker is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14710
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I guess because nobody asked for it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You reported the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43660
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > [Note that the same issue exists with other ways of invoking using the
> > generator (e.g., a std::uniform_real_distribution with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10350
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com |
--
You are receiving this mail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14710
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-14
10:52:18 UTC ---
I can see some value in the base class case too, but whether it's useless
depends on context, here the exact same casts are not redundant because they
select between two overloads:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-02
21:29:53 UTC ---
(can this bug be un-ASSIGNED?)
(In reply to comment #25)
> Here, H must have a virtual destructor. The point where it can know it should
> warn is the "delete this;" line.
I've pos
18 matches
Mail list logo
