On 7 December 2011 20:14, Christian Joensson wrote:
> I am trying to build gcc trunk on cygwin (with the snapshot of
> 20111207) and get this:
>
> /usr/local/src/trunk/objdir.withada/./prev-gcc/g++
> -B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir.withada/./prev-gcc/
> -B/usr/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ -nostdinc++
> -B/usr
Hi,
According to § 11.3/1 from c++98, access delarations are deprecated:
The access of a member of a base class can be changed in the derived
class by mentioning its qualified-id in the derived class declaration.
Such mention is called an access declaration. The effect of an access
declaration qu
On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>
> Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang already
> does.
> So that you get a warning for the following code:
>
> struct A { int i; };
> struct B : A
> {
> A::i; // <- warning here
> };
>
> warning: access declarations ar
Bringing this over from gcc-patches@
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:50:37PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
No, not OK.
This leads to unacceptable code for devices that cannot shift easily like,
e.g.AVR. This target can only shift by 1 and shifts with big offsets have
to be pe
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> If there was a canonical representation of these operations, a backend
> wouldn't even notice if the tree passes chose a different, more convenient
> canonicalization.
The problem is not just the canonicalization but rather there is a
pr
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> > If there was a canonical representation of these operations, a backend
> > wouldn't even notice if the tree passes chose a different, more convenient
> > canonicalization.
>
> The problem is no
2011/12/11 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 11 December 2011 22:22, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> Consequently, I propose to deprecate them with a warning, as clang already
>> does.
>> So that you get a warning for the following code:
>>
>> struct A { int i; };
>> struct B : A
>> {
>> A::i; // <- warning here
